Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speakerin the Chair

MOTOR VEHICLES (OFFENCES)

ADDRESS FOR RETURN

"showing the number of offences relating to motor vehicles in England and Wales, the number of persons prosecuted for such offences, the results of the proceedings in magistrates' courts, and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the police, together with the number of persons concerned, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1950."—[Mr. de Freitas.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MULTIPLE EXECUTIONS

Captain Field: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will abolish the practice of multiple executions.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): In England and Wales arrangements for judicial execution are the responsibility of the sheriff, who sometimes arranges for two, though not more, executions to be carried out simultaneously. On the information at present available I see no reason to suggest any change, though the matter will be reviewed in the light of any comments that the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment may see fit to make.

Captain Field: Does my right hon. Friend realise that some delay, however slight, must occur when the first person is brought to the scaffold, and that this is very undesirable? In view of the public disquiet on this matter, will my right hon. Friend have a look at the practice again?

Mr. Ede: I have very carefully examined it, and I understand that the arrangements are such that there is not the delay that my hon. and gallant Friend has suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES (PAY)

Mr. Richard Law: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many instances since the war, he has, after consultation with local authorities, authorised an increase in the salary of a stipendiary magistrate; and in how many instances he has confirmed the appointment of a new stipendiary at a salary higher than that of his predecessor.

Mr. Ede: Ten stipendiary magistrates have received increases in salary since the war, including three whose increases were granted with effect from 1st April, 1945. In one case, a higher salary was paid on a new appointment.

Mr. Law: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact' that the salaries of county court judges and Metropolitan magistrates are to be raised, he will, after consultation with the local authorities concerned, review the salaries of stipendiary magistrates.

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Law: While thanking the Home Secretary for the consideration that he is to give to this matter, may I ask if he could say when he is likely to come to a decision?

Mr. Ede: Negotiations with local authorities on matters like this are apt to be rather protracted, because even when willing to move they are not always prepared to go quite as far as I should like.

Mr. Awbery: When dealing with the local authorities about stipendiary magistrates' salaries, will my right hon. Friend also consider the question of the salaries of magistrates' clerks?

Mr. Ede: The salaries of magistrates' clerks are matters for recommendations to me by the appropriate authority.

Mr. Awbery: Surely the Minister could consult with the local authorities on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAFALGAR SQUARE (POLITICAL MEETINGS)

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many political meetings have been held in Trafalgar Square during the past year; and the number organised by each political party.

Mr. Ede: According to police records 29 meetings which might be described as being of a political nature were held in Trafalgar Square between 1st August, 1950, and 31st July, 1951. Eighteen different organisations sponsored meetings and I will, with permission, circulate the detailed list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Russell: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether most of the organisations responsible for these meetings were dominated by the Communist Party, and does he not think it quite wrong that political banners, no matter what party they belong to, should be displayed from the face of the Nelson statue?

Mr. Ede: It is very difficult to determine which of these bodies may have some affiliation with the Communist Party. Some of them certainly had not, I should think. I do not think that the London Housewives' Association is connected with them, nor the Sinn Fein Party. There are other bodies called "The Britons" and "Tottenham Nationalists." They do not seem to be Stalinist organisations, but I have no doubt some of the others are more or less Communist inspired. With regard to the banners, I do not think that it would be possible to disturb what is a well-established practice.

Details are as follow:

The following meetings of a political nature were held in Trafalgar Square between 1st August, 1950, and 31st July, 1951:


Organisers.
No. of Meetings.


United Irishmen
3


London District Committee, Communist Party
3


London Housewives' Association.
3


Peace Pledge Union
2


Anti-Partition of Ireland League
2


Christian and Gentiles Front
2


British Peace Committee
2


Coloured Workers' Association
2


British Empire Party
1


London Peace Council
1


Union Movement
1


Ex-Service Movement for Peace
1


Joint Trade Union Defence Committee
1


London Trades Council
1


Sinn Fein Party
1


Equal Pay Campaign Committee
1


National Federation of Old Age Pensioners Associations
1


"The Britons" and "Tottenham Nationalists"
1

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN SHIP, PLYMOUTH (SHORE LEAVE)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why his officers did not allow Russians on the training ship "Tovarisch," which put into Plymouth recently, to land.

Mr. Ede: No question arose of allowing any Russians ashore during the short call of the "Tovarisch" at Plymouth. The master informed the immigration authorities that he was not granting any shore leave, and placed an armed guard at the gangway to enforce his order.

Wing Commander Bullus: That reply will clear up the confusion caused by newspaper reports, but does not the right hon. Gentleman think that we should take advantage of the far too, rare opportunities to extend the hand of friendship to the Russians?

Mr. Ede: If there had been any desire on the part of the master of the ship that shore leave should be granted we would have done what we could to assist him, and if any sailors had got off the ship in spite of the armed guard I have no doubt the hand of friendship would have been extended to them.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is it not consistent with the name of this ship that there should be no obstacle to comradeship?

Oral Answers to Questions — MRS. M. JOHNSON, SOUTH SHIELDS (FINE REMISSION)

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he made in South Shields on 14–15th July for communicating to the Press the decision to remit part of the fine imposed on Mrs. M. Johnson.

Mr. Ede: That the local representative of the Press Association should be informed on 16th July of the decision.

Mr. Powell: Can the Home Secretary say through what channel the information was to have been given to the representative of the Press Association?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. That was made quite clear in the answers which were given last week.

Mr. Powell: I have the answers which were given last week in front of me. The right hon. Gentleman only said:
 I made arrangements that a proper communication should be made to [the Press]."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1951; Vol. 490, c. 2308.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman say what channel he utilised for the purpose?

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member himself, in a supplementary question, indicated that he knew the channel.

Mr. Powell: Why does the right hon. Gentleman not give a plain answer to a plain question?

Mr. Ede: Because the hon. Gentleman supplied the answer himself last week.

Mr. Jennings: Will the Home Secretary not agree that it is rather significant that this information came out at the time when he was in his own constituency having discussions with his agent?

Mr. Ede: No. It came out the day after I had been in the constituency. That was made quite clear to the House last week. I used my local secretary as the appropriate person to make a communication on my behalf to the Press.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMOKE POLLUTION

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if he will have two months' observations made and records taken on the smoke poured out, and of the amount and effect of smoke pollution caused by the tileries at Trent Vale, Fenton, Blurton and Longton Stoke-on-Trent and give consideration to the report.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): No, Sir. My noble Friend has not the power of entry required to make these particular observations. It would not be possible from observations in the vicinity of the tileries to say how much pollution is caused by them.

Mr. Smith: If my hon. Friend's noble Friend has not that authority, who has? Is it the local authority? Is it not a fact that the men who are dealing with this matter are very public-spirited men,

anxious to bring about great improvements, and that they desire more authority? Will my hon. Friend use his influence to see that this is given?

Mr. de Freitas: Under the Public Health Act, 1936, local authorities have power to enter and inspect premises to detect smoke nuisance. As to the last part of the supplementary question, they are all highly public-spirited men in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the best information about firing tiles, pottery and other industrial products is available to the local authorities, whether they have sufficient staff to do the work and whether industrial organisations are asked to cooperate, because so much more could be done?

Mr. de Freitas: That question goes very much further than the Question on the Order Paper, which relates only to observations to be made by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Would it be a difficult question for my hon. Friend if I asked him whether he is aware that it is difficult to obtain a successful prosecution when there is smoke nuisance of this type? Further when success is obtained the fine is usually so low that the prosecution is not worth while.

Mr. de Freitas: I cannot go as far as that. It is beyond the matter in the original Question.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department as representing the Lord President of the Council, if he can give the total solids per square mile created by smoke pollution during June, 1950, at Longton Stoke-on-Trent, Phillips Park, Manchester, Drinkwater Park, Salford, Trafford Park and Harrogate.

Mr. de Freitas: Stoke-on-Trent, 27 tons: Manchester, 54; Salford, 19; Trafford Park, no record; Harrogate, 3.

Mr. Smith: Do not these figures disclose a very unsatisfactory state of affairs? Seeing that our people are making such a great contribution to Britain's needs, is it not wrong that they


should be living in these conditions, in view of the effect upon their physique? Will my hon. Friend do all that he possibly can to bring about radical improvements?

Mr. de Freitas: That question goes considerably further than the Question on the Order Paper. I am answering here for the Lord President of the Council, who is charged with responsibility for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. I am not answering with regard to action to be taken to rid the country of smoke pollution, but I will bring the remarks of my hon. Friend to the attention of those concerned.

Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that over Pittsburgh there used to be a terrible pall of smoke but that they have now cleared the air? If that can be done in Pittsburgh why cannot it be done in Stoke-on-Trent?

Mr. de Freitas: I am well aware of the enormous improvements made at Pittsburgh. The figures which I gave are the average rate of deposit of solid matter in towns per square mile.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is the Minister aware that a lot of this solid matter falls on two factories with which I am connected. and which emit no smoke at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Tuberculosis Patients (Diet)

14. Mr. York: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increased difficulty experienced by tuberculosis sanatoria in providing an adequate diet for their patients, he will consult with the Minister of Food with a view to obtaining an increased meat ration for the patients in such sanatoria and also for other persons certified by a doctor as suffering from tuberculosis.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Marquand): I have no evidence of such difficulty as the hon. Member suggests, and I am advised that the present national diet is not inadequate for tuberculosis patients. They will, of course, have the benefit of the increases now taking place in the general meat ration.

Mr. York: Is the Minister aware that palatibility is one of the main things to work for in this form of dietary? Would

he put the matter to his special diet committee for further consideration?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir, I am willing to do that.

Proprietary Medicines

15 and 16. Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware that some proprietary medicines are not only expensive but useless; and what action he contemplates taking in order to protect the public;

(2) whether he will initiate an examination of the manufacture of proprietary medicines.

Mr. Marquand: There is already a considerable degree of legislative control over proprietary medicines and I have the matter generally under constant consideration. If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any suggestions which he has in mind, I will gladly consider them.

Dr. Stross: Has my right hon. Friend considered the action that has been taken in France to bring about an improvement in this direction? If he has, can be tell us, briefly, what the French have done and whether he will consider doing something similar here?

Mr. Marquand: I have been aware, since my hon. Friend put his Question down, that there are special provisions in France, but I am sorry that I have not yet had time to study them.

Dr. Hill: In the consideration that the right hon. Gentleman gives to this matter will he bear in mind that the word "proprietary" covers not only the useless but the immensely valuable products as well, and that it is very desirable that there should be a clarification of terms in this matter?

Mr. Marquand: It is certainly true—I hope that my answer has not erred in this connection—that there are very valuable proprietary medicines.

Dr. Stross: I am not aware that my right hon. Friend's answer has dealt with the point in Question No. 16, in which I ask whether he will initiate an examination into the manufacture of proprietary medicines. Will he tell us


whether an examination is being made into the ethical and the non-ethical, the useless and the useful?

Mr. Marquand: The Central Health Services Council have a special subcommittee, the Joint Committee on Prescribing, under Sir Henry Cohen, which is surveying the whole field of prescribing. They include a survey of the whole field of pharmaceutical preparations available for prescribing.

Lieut. -Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is it not a fact that a large proportion of these proprietary medicines are a god-send for the treatment of minor complaints in the home, and that they all, so far as we know, conform to a very high standard of preparation?

Mr. Nally: While recognising the force of what was said by the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not agree that there are sufficient of these so-called "proprietary medicines" whose efficacy is doubtful and whose prices represent a fantastic racket? In taking this matter into account, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the impatience that exists in all parts of the House at the fact that this question has been discussed time and time again for six years? Hon. Members are becoming very impatient about it.

Mr. Marquand: Quite a number of proprietary medicines and preparations have already been listed by Sir Henry Cohen's Committee and the names of those which are not desirable for prescribing have been notified to general practitioners.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not a fact that a large number of proprietary medicines are prescribed by physicians?

Mr. Marquand: There is no interference with the right of physicians to prescribe.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Is it not the case that the French forbid the distribution of unethical and useless proprietary medicines?

Mr. Marquand: I have not had time to inquire into so many questions about the French system.

Lieut. -Colonel Elliot: I well remember that there was an hon. Member on that side of the House, whom the hon. Lady

the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) will also remember, who spoke up vehemently in favour of a proprietary remedy for tuberculosis by which he said he had been cured. It was quite contrary to all medical experience, but it had done him a great deal of good.

Child's Death, Bradford

17. Mr. Frank McLeavy: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take with respect to the hospitals concerned arising from the verdict of a Bradford coroner's jury in the case of Eileen Cunliffe.

Mr. Marquand: I have asked the Regional Hospital Board to ensure that it is clearly understood at each of the hospitals concerned that in no circumstances may a patient who needs immediate admission to hospital be sent on to another hospital while still an "emergency" and that the casualty departments are always under the effective supervision of experienced medical officers.
I am informed that, after a very full investigation of the case, the Board have drawn the attention of the medical officer concerned at the Children's Hospital to the fact that she was seriously at fault in not seeing the child; and have informed the then senior surgical registrar at the Royal Infirmary that in their opinion he could not escape full responsibility for failure to admit her. The Board have decided that the casualty officer at the latter hospital should be completely exonerated from all blame.

Mr. McLeavy: While I thank my right hon. Friend for the personal attention which he has paid to the unfortunate case in Bradford, do I understand that he has now given general instructions to hospitals throughout the country that, where an accident or emergency case is taken to a hospital, the first hospital that receives the patient should give immediate attention even if it is necessary later to transfer the patient to a more appropriate hospital?

Mr. Marquand: I have made special representations to the Regional Board responsible for the hospital where this deplorable event occurred. There is no evidence that similar instructions need be issued to hospitals generally, but the senior administrative medical officers of all


regional boards have had the facts of this and similar cases brought to their notice and have been asked to look into the whole question of the admission and treatment of casualties of this kind.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Press were not admitted to the inquiry into the case? Does he not think it undesirable and against the public interest that proceedings of this character affecting public institutions should be held in private? Is he aware that I have here a letter from a juryman at the inquest alleging that perjury was committed by a person or persons when giving evidence on oath at the inquiry? In view of this will he cause the whole of the proceedings to be made public, so that the allegations may be seen to be justified or not?

Mr. Marquand: I feel that I cannot reply to the serious allegations contained in the second part of that supplementary question, of which I have had no notice and for which I doubt if I have responsibility anyway. As for the first part of the supplementary question, the hon. Member should realise that where the professional reputation and integrity of people is concerned it is desirable that they should have the full opportunity of legal representation, which they did in this case, and an opportunity to state their case without the Press being present.

Mr. George Craddock: Is it the intention of my right hon. Friend to give instructions to regional boards in the light of the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy)?

Mr. Marquand: No, Sir. I have explained that we have drawn this situation to the attention of the senior administrative medical officers of other regional boards where we are not aware of any such errors having been committed.

Dr. Hill: Is not the essence of the whole trouble that no patient should be turned away from hospital without being medically examined?

Mr. Marquand: Exactly, Sir. That is precisely the essence of it.

Mr. McLeavy: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very serious concern which is felt not only in Bradford but throughout

the country as a result of this very unfortunate case? Is he also aware that he would find general agreement on all sides of the House that everything possible should be done to prevent a recurrence of this type of case in any other part of the country and that the feeling of the House would undoubtedly be that he should give general instructions to make sure that no regional boards, hospital committees, or management committees, or whatever officials may be affected, make an error of this unfortunate character in future?

Mr. Marquand: I believe that I have taken all reasonable steps. As the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) said, the essence of it is that errors of professional practice were committed in this instance. By drawing the attention of administrative medical officers to this possibility and asking them to ensure that it cannot possibly occur in their areas I feel that I have done all that is reasonable and practicable.

Mr. Taylor: When the Minister says that he has no authority to deal with the points raised in my supplementary question, does he mean that he has no authority to cause the proceedings of the inquiry to be made public?

Mr. Marquand: I have no authority over the courts. If I understood the hon. Member's supplementary question correctly, he made an allegation about the proceedings at the coroner's court.

Mr. Taylor: I asked the Minister to cause the proceedings to be made public. I now repeat that request.

Mr. Nally: On a point of order. I understood the second part of the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. W. J. Taylor), to include the allegation that he had received a letter from a juryman at the inquest alleging that there was perjury before the coroner's court. Perjury before any court is a criminal offence. Surely the duty of the hon. Member is to convey that letter very promptly to the police, and not put Questions in the House.

Mr. Taylor: May I have your Ruling, Mr. Speaker? Is it not the duty of an hon. Member to raise an important issue of this kind in the House?

Mr. Speaker: I suppose that that is so, but we had better get on to the next Question.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Now that these serious allegations have been made, will my right hon. Friend see that a reply is made so that public confidence in this matter shall be restored?

Mr. Marquand: I am sure that the attention of the Minister responsible will be drawn to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. W. J. Taylor).

Medical Practitioners (Pay)

19. Dr. Hill: asked the Minister of Health if he is now able to state his decision on the request from the conference of local medical committees that the long-standing dispute on the remuneration of general practitioners in the National Health Service be referred for arbitration.

Mr. Marquand: I hope to reply to this request in the course of the next few days.

Mr. Awbery: As there appears to be a dispute between the medical committees and the National Health Service, will my right hon. Friend now refer the matter to the Minister of Labour with a view to the appointment of an arbitrator so that the matter can be discussed in the same manner as ordinary industrial disputes?

Mr. Marquand: There is no dispute. An exchange of views is taking place. My latest letter will be on its way very shortly.

Handicapped Persons

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Health what is the present composition of his Advisory Council for the Welfare of Handicapped Persons; and whether he is satisfied that adequate representation is given to Welsh interests.

Mr. Llewellyn: asked the Minister of Health whether he will publish the names of those representing Welsh interests on his Advisory Council for the Welfare of Handicapped Persons; when this council last met; how many times it has met since 1st January, 1951; and what recommendations it has made in so far as handicapped persons in Wales are particularly concerned.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the present composition of the Advisory Council. I am satisfied that there is adequate representation of Welsh interests. The Council has met once this year on 1st March. The advice which my right hon. Friend received from it relates to the welfare of handicapped persons throughout England and Wales and has not been framed on a geographical basis.

Following are the names:
Edward Evans, Esq., C.B.E., M.P. (Chairman); Fraser Brockington, Esq., M.A., M.D., D.P.H.; Alderman Mrs. Kathleen Chambers, J.P.; J. Rhaiadr Jones, Esq.; K. P. McDougall, Esq.; Councillor R. Malcolm; Councillor Miss May O'Conor; Sir Geoffrey Peto, K.B.E.; Alderman Mrs. L' Estrange Malone, M.A., J.P.; Godfrey Robinson, Esq. M.C.; T. H. Smith, Esq.; J. D. Spillane, Esq., M.D., M.R.C.P.; Alderman Mrs. G. Tebbutt; H. Willard, Esq.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he has yet considered the recommendations of his Advisory Council for the Welfare of Handicapped Persons; and whether he proposes to publish these recommendations, in view of the concern of local authorities in regard to their obligations under the National Assistance Act;
(2) whether he proposes to issue directions to local authorities in respect of the welfare clauses of the National Assistance Act. in regard to disabilities other than blindness.

Mr. Blenkinsop: My right hon. Friend will be issuing a circular to local authorities on the provision of welfare services for handicapped persons other than the blind, based on the recommendations he has received from his Advisory Council, in the course of the next few weeks.

Mr. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply will be received with pleasure, because local authorities are very much concerned about how they should act on this questions?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am aware that they are anxious to put some of these proposals into force.

Confinements, Monmouthshire

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Health how many domiciliary confinements were attended by midwives in the


public service in Monmouthshire during the year ended 31st December, 1950 and in how many of these confinements was gas and air administered.

Mr. Marquand: The numbers are, respectively, 2,362 and 1,516.

Mrs. Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these figures reveal that there were 846 mothers who did not receive gas and air treatment, although every midwife in Monmouthshire has the equipment? Can he say why they received no gas and air treatment?

Mr. Marquand: No, Sir.

Mrs. Mann: Before foisting upon the public this useless, out-moded and expensive analgesia, will my right hon. Friend ascertain why the women are not taking advantage of it?

Mr. Marquand: I will make what inquiries I can, but it is rather difficult to find out exactly what happened in cases which I hope, are now happily delivered.

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Health the number of domiciliary confinements in Monmouthshire during the year ended 31st December, 1950, at which a doctor was present; and the number which were carried out by midwives only.

Mr. Marquand: I regret that the information is not available in the form desired.

Mrs. Mann: Is it not very important that we should know whether or not a doctor was present at the confinements in Monmouthshire?

Mr. Marquand: I was very anxious to give the hon. Lady the information, but it is difficult to get it because the boundaries of the administrative arrangements of the midwifery service do not coincide with the administrative boundaries of the county.

Mr. James Johnson: Is there any constitutional precedent for the exchange of constituencies between the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft)?

Dr. Stross: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend has not been able to give the information asked of him in the

question, would he consider approaching the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) and asking him for his aid in this matter?

Medical Treatment, Switzerland

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Health what reasons were given by the Swiss Government for being unwilling to reciprocate by making medical attention and hospital treatment available free of charge to British visitors to Switzerland.

Mr. Marquand: The Swiss Government have stated that their domestic legislation does not enable them to grant such reciprocity.

Mr. Russell: Is the Minister aware that a constituent of mine who was recently on holiday in Switzerland became ill, had to go into hospital and received a bill for£70 for treatment? Does he not think it monstrous that Swiss citizens here who become ill while on holiday should get free treatment, while British citizens in Switzerland should not?

Mr. Marquand: Nothing would please me more than if the Swiss Government would establish a national health service, but until they do so there is nothing to be done about it.

Mr. Russell: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Swiss Government and to other Governments to co-operate in this matter?

Mr. Donnelly: Will my right hon. Friend make representations through the usual channels to try to persuade Members of the Opposition to advertise the Health Service of this country when they go abroad?

Kingston Victoria Hospital

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Health for what purpose the Kingston Victoria Hospital is at present being used.

Mr. Marquand: The necessary work is in hand for conversion to use as a gynaecological unit.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the allegation of the regional board about the urgent need of this hospital for its new purpose, can he say when it will be available for use?

Mr. Marquand: I cannot say for certain when it will be available, but the work of painting and flooring is proceeding, and the electrical and plumbing work has to be done after that. I cannot give a firm date.

Mr. Black: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very general feeling in the neighbourhood that this work is taking a very long time, having regard to the alleged urgency, and will he look into the matter to see if it can be expedited in any way?

Mr. Marquand: Yes. Sir, certainly.

Dismissed Employees (Appeal)

Mr. Black: asked the Minister of Health what arrangements he proposes to make whereby employees in the Health Service who are dismissed from their employment may have a right of appeal to an independent tribunal.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: asked the Minister of Health whether he will ask the Hospital Administrative and Clerical Staffs Whitley Council to consider, as a matter of urgency, the drawing up of a code of procedure for dealing with disciplinary cases.

Mr. Marquand: This is a matter for the General Whitley Council, not for any particular council, because it concerns all grades of staff. The General Council has been discussing it for some time and I am very disappointed that an agreement has not been reached. In the meantime. I am issuing a memorandum of guidance on the subject to employing authorities.

Mr. Black: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has already issued a memorandum on this matter to the hospital boards on the procedure to be followed, and, if so, whether the procedure outlined therein is now being adopted?

Mr. Marquand: I approved the final draft of the circular a week or so ago. I do not think that it could have reached the regional hospital boards yet.

Ineducable Children, Birmingham

Mr Yates: asked the Minister of Health how many ineducable children there are in Birmingham certified to be in need of institutional care but unable

to obtain admission; how many have been waiting for more than two years; and what steps his department is taking to provide additional accommodation for such cases.

Mr. Marquand: There are 142 mentally defective children under 16 in the City of Birmingham awaiting admission to institutional care and of that number 69 have been waiting for more than two years. Regional boards have been asked to give high priority to the provision of additional accommodation for such children within the limits imposed by the present economic situation.

Mr. Yates: While appreciating the Minister's answer, may I ask if he does not realise that this need is causing very grave anxiety throughout the whole of the Midlands, as it is hardly possible to-obtain a vacancy throughout the whole of the Midlands? Does he not think that there should be much closer investigation and inquiry into this matter, because it is causing considerable anxiety to parents who are unable to control very difficult children?

Mr. Marquand: I am aware of the seriousness of this problem. I am sorry to say that it can be found in other parts of the country as well as the Midlands. I am doing all that I can administratively, by encouragement of the enrolment of nurses and by pressure on the regional boards, to provide more accommodation.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in the Midlands, including specialists, teachers, and laymen, feel that there are perhaps children in these institutions who might safely be released and thus afford beds for much worse cases?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir, and the possibilities of release are continuously under review.

Skin Hospital, Birmingham

Mr. Yates: asked the Minister of Health how long the children's ward of the Skin Hospital, Birmingham, has been closed, when it is likely to be reopened; and what alternative arrangements have been made for children in need of hospital treatment.

Mr. Marquand: The ward was closed on 7th February and it is expected that


it will re-open on 15th August. During the closure, beds have been available in side wards in the Skin Hospital and in other local hospitals.

Mr. Yates: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that I have had recently a case of a child who had been under hospital treatment for two and a half years, who was admitted in November and discharged in December and has not been able to be re-admitted since February last? It is a very grave matter if children are unable to get treatment for skin diseases for so many months.

Mr. Marquand: Yes, but I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that the hospital was closed because of an outbreak of chicken-pox. The closing has been followed by some redecoration. The hospital is to be re-opened on 15th August, and if the case which my hon. Friend has in mind is not then admitted I hope he will communicate with me.

Tuberculosis Beds, Bristol

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Health how many tuberculosis beds are now available in the Bristol area; how many persons are waiting for sanatoria treatment; and what action he is taking to meet the increased demand for treatment and to induce nurses to enter this service.

Mr. Marquand: On 30th June, 1951, there were 425 staffed beds and a waiting list of 96. By using spare accommodation in general and isolation hospitals, 59 additional beds had been provided since July, 1950, and 15 more will be opened shortly. More nursing staff has been made available by the introduction of comprehensive training schemes which link the beds with large general hospitals.

Mr. Awbery: Will my right hon. Friend utilise beds that are set aside for other purposes and are not in use, and, at the same time, consult the T.B. specialists in the area on this question?

Mr. Marquand: The waiting list has been halved since June, 1950, and I think that great progress is being made. I am satisfied that the board are devoting their attention in every possible way to this serious problem.

Cortisone

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Health why the import of cortisone on private account is forbidden.

Mr. Marquand: Such imports are not recommended because my Department is already importing the maximum quantity of this drug obtainable from the U.S.A. and distributing it for clinical research and for hospital treatment of cases which, on medical grounds, are most in need. Private imports would make it difficult for me to expand, or even to maintain, these arrangements.
I must emphasise that, like A.C.T.H., cortisone is still experimental and requires careful, continual biochemical investigation of the patient during treatment. For this reason, it is inadvisable to treat patients away from hospital and laboratory facilities. Carelessness in the use of the drug and omission of these precautions can have serious and unpredictable results. A longer period of experimental investigation is, therefore, essential.

Mr. Wakefield: What happens in the case of a person genuinely requiring treatment by cortisone who lives in a distant part of the country, remote from a hospital where the drug is obtained? Can such a person's doctor obtain the drug and administer the treatment?

Mr. Marquand: For the reasons I have given, it is necessary that the treatment takes place in hospital. I have no doubt that there are persons who would benefit from this treatment who are not able to get it, but we are importing the maximum available and we are treating suitable cases with it. In the circumstances, I do not see that more can be done.

Mr. Jennings: Is the Minister not aware of the case of one of my constituents—a Mr. Kent, of Sheffield—who is between life and death and who requires this drug very urgently? I have appealed to the Minister, but delay is still taking place. If that man is allowed to die without some of this drug being used a very serious state of affairs will arise.

Dr. Hill: Is the Minister not aware that the statement he has made represents the general view of those engaged in this work, and that it is undesirable in the public interest to deal with this subject in relation to individual hard cases until


there has been a period of examination and experiment?

Mr. Marquand: I am very grateful indeed for that supplementary question. I made a long answer purposely, because it has been so much impressed upon me by my medical advisers that we must proceed very cautiously.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Health whether he will encourage the establishment of a factory in this country for the production of cortisone, as he did in regard to the manufacture and production of aureomycin.

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. I will certainly consider sympathetically any proposals designed to achieve this object.

Sir T. Moore: As the Minister knows, and as I have said before, despite what has been said by my distinguished Friend the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), cortisone is regarded by very able physicians as affording the only relief for arthritis. As the right hon. Gentleman has been so successful in encouraging the manufacture of aureomycin, will he not do his best to facilitate supplies and experiments as quickly as possible?

Mr. Marquand: I understand that an approach has already been made to my Department, and we are giving it all the help we can.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) is asking for the establishment of another nationalised industry?

Sir T. Moore: No. I said that it should be given encouragement.

Identity Cards

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Health if he will specify in detail the purposes for which identity cards are still required.

Mr. Marquand: Identity cards are an essential part of the national registration system, which continues to render valuable services in connection with National Service, security, food rationing, the National Health Service and the administration of other services such as family allowances and post-war credits. The possession of an identity card enables the holder to obtain a new ration book

and to withdraw money from the Post Office Savings Bank with the minimum of formality; it simplifies the process of obtaining a passport; it makes it unnecessary to produce a birth certificate in support of a claim for the payment of post-war credits; and it avoids difficulty in establishing identity when applying for dental or other treatment or to be placed on a doctor's list.

Mr. Gammans: Is not food rationing the only service mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman which we did not have before the war? Can he explain why we managed before the war to draw money out of the Post Office Savings Bank and to enjoy most of the other services he mentioned without having identity cards?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir, but there is no doubt that the existence of a National Register greatly facilitates these matters. It makes them easier than they were before the war.

Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only people who are seriously disadvantaged by the regulations concerning identity cards are those who break the law? Will he resist the blandishments of the Opposition, which are designed to enable him to help such antisocial persons?

Mr. Powell: How does the National Registration card affect the need for a birth certificate in the case of the redemption of post-war credits, since the date of birth is not stated on the card?

Mr. Marquand: I am advised that the quotation of the National Registration number on the application form enables the date of birth to be checked efficiently and economically.

Lieut. -Colonel Lipton: Why are identity cards required by opticians and dentists before spectacles and teeth are provided under National Health Insurance arrangements? What use is made of these registration numbers by the Ministry of Health?

Mr. Marquand: There is, of course, no National Health Insurance in this country. (HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is a very common misunderstanding and I like to take every opportunity to correct it. If there were no National Register I should have to invent a register of my


own for the National Health Service for the purpose of identifying the persons who use the Health Service.

Mr. Wills: asked the Minister of Health whether under his regulations dental and medical practitioners are entitled to demand the production of their patients' national identity cards for the purposes of inserting these particulars on his department's forms.

Mr. Marquand: No, Sir. Patients desiring treatment under the National Health Service are asked to give their National Registration numbers as an additional means of identification and normally do so.

Mr. Wills: In view of this answer, will the Minister reconsider the answer given to me on 5th July and discontinue the practice of compelling doctors and dentists to put identity numbers on all papers submitted to his office? If they have not the right to demand the production of the card, it is very difficult for them to be certain of the accuracy of the numbers they put on the forms.

Mr. Marquand: I agree that it is difficult if patients do not co-operate, but I cannot see any easy remedy for that. It means that a lot of additional administrative work has to be done.

Dr. Hill: As the Health Service is available to every inhabitant in this country, will he explain how it is impossible to continue the service without the use of the identity card?

Mr. Marquand: I do not say that it is impossible, but it is enormously more convenient to have numbers.

Sir H. Williams: Think of a number; will not names do?

Mr. Marquand: Names would not do, but if the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) had lived in Wales, as I have, he would know that there are thousands of David John Williams, and it is necessary to have numbers, which do no one any harm.

Dr. Hill: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how they got on in Wales, in the days before the National Health Service, without identity cards?

Mr. Marquand: I am quite certain that they had a great deal of trouble; but they also had numbers then.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL COMPANY FILMS (DISTRIBUTION)

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Newsreel Association are refusing to show films taken by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in Persia unless the company supply films only to members of the Association; and whether, in those circumstances, he will arrange to have news items of events in Persia, taken by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, distributed on commercial terms through the Central Office of Information during such period as the Newsreel Association refuses to allow the films to be distributed to all British newsreels.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir, I know of one such instance, but I do not think it would serve any useful purpose for the Central Office of Information to distribute films of this sort.

Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been many such instances, and that on the opening of Parliament by His Majesty the companies who are members of the Newsreel Association then said that unless they had a monopoly they would see that no films of the Royal opening were shown? Is it not altogether a bad thing, particularly with regard to a vehicle of public opinion, that these restrictive practices should continue? Cannot my right hon. Friend use his own film unit to break these restrictive practices?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: My hon. Friend's Question refers to films about Persia, and I said that I knew of one such instance. I do not think that it would be suitable for the Central Office of Information to start newsreel distribution; it certainly is not equipped to do so. Equally, I do not think that it would be wise for the Government to attempt to dictate what should appear in newsreels any more than to dictate what should appear in newspapers.

Mr. Nally: Are we to assume from my right hon. Friend's reply that he has no very strong views at all about propriety of the action taken by this Association? If he has no views, would he consult with Members of the Opposition in an endeavour to break this most vicious "closed shop"?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: My hon. Friend is quite wrong in supposing that I have no views on this matter.

Mr. Mikardo: Surely this is not a question of what should go into newsreels. The films in question have been taken by officers of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The Prime Minister said the other day that he wished to encourage the maximum showing of anything which gave the British point of view in the Persian oil dispute, and here we have some film companies saying that they will only show this material of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company provided that no other companies are allowed to have it. Surely, this is a state of affairs which the Government cannot view with equanimity.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I did not say that I viewed it with equanimity. I said that I did not think the Government should dictate what should appear in newsreels.

Mr. Driberg: Are not the Government a chief shareholder in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and are not the Government therefore directly interested in a matter which should be referred to the Monopolies Commission, who would, however, take much too long to deal with it effectively?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: The Government is, of course, a shareholder in this company, but we are talking about newsreel companies. There was a Question to my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade about the monopoly aspect of this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MARRIAGE LAWS (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Lieut. -Colonel Lipton: asked the Prime Minister when he anticipates that the Royal Commission on the Marriage Laws will be finally constituted.

Mr. Ede: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend hopes that it will be possible to make an announcement very shortly.

Lieut. -Colonel Lipton: As the appointment of this Royal Commission was rather grudgingly conceded in the first instance, may we have an assurance that the authorities concerned are not halfhearted in getting it constituted, because,

on its final decision the solution of scores of thousands of human tragedies will depend?

Mr. Ede: Yes, but delay is not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend. People invited to serve do not always answer by return of post.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER'S SPEECH (PERSONAL INCOMES)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Prime Minister if the speech of the Secretary of State for War at Laurencekirk, Kincardineshire on 28th July on the redistribution of personal incomes, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Ede: I am not sure to which passage the hon. Member is referring, but the speech was primarily a broad description by my right hon. Friend of the ultimate aims of Socialism rather than a statement on immediate issues of Government policy.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Home Secretary ask the Prime Minister to restrain these speeches by irresponsible demagogues of his Government?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I shall make no such representations.

Mr. Jennings: In view of the statement of the Home Secretary and that of the Minister of Defence in America, that he is a better judge of beauty contests than rifles, will he arrange for the Minister of Defence to join the staff of Elizabeth Arden over there?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is too useful in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Public House Land (Court Case)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Court of Appeal, Dunn v. Fidoe, 1950, whereby a brewery company leasing a public house, with land attached, on a yearly tenancy, is adjudged to have acquired a title to the land in perpetuity subject only to an appeal to him under Section 25 (1, d) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, and that this title can be assigned


to another company; and whether he will take action to remedy this anomaly.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Champion): My right hon. Friend is aware of the decision of the Court of Appeal, to which the hon. Member refers, which was that on the facts of that particular case the public house concerned, and the land attached to it, comprised an agricultural holding for the purposes of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. Since before the proceedings were taken, the Agricultural Land Tribunal had withheld their consent to the operation of a notice to quit given by the landlord to the tenant, such notice is now ineffective.
It is not true, however, to say that the tenant has thereby acquired a title to the land in perpetuity. The nature of the tenant's interest is entirely unchanged by the Court's decision that the holding is an agricultural holding for the purposes of the Act. The tenant is only entitled to such security of tenure as that Act gives to tenants.

Mr. Crouch: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to cases on similar lines? Will he see that in such cases the public house and the land can be vacated without encountering the difficulties which were encountered in the case to which I have referred?

Mr. Champion: If the hon. Member is thinking in terms of removing what appears to him an anomaly in this connection, my reply is that that can only be done by amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. Any alteration on these lines can only be done by amendments to that Act.

Mr. Crouch: I hope that in the near future we may have an amendment to that Act on these lines.

Tyler's Common, Upminster

Mr. Bing: asked the Minister of Agriculture what action he proposes to take following upon the application made to him by a number of commoners of Tyler's Common, Upminster, to convene a meeting in accordance with Section 1 of the Commons Act, 1908, to make regulations for the turning out of animals on the common.

Mr. Champion: My right hon. Friend has invited the applicants, through their solicitors, to supply him with further information. This has now been received and is being examined. No decision to summon a meeting will, however, be taken in any event until the Essex County Council have had a reasonable time in which to carry out their expressed intention of investigating the existence of the alleged rights of common.

Mr. Bing: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Essex County Council have had over a year to carry out this examination, and that they have illegally enclosed this common and let it to one of their members? Will my hon. Friend see that immediate and further support is given to the commoners to show a far greater interest in and observation of the law than Essex County Council?

Mr. Champion: My right hon. Friend will, of course, consider the representations of my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Bing: Is my hon. Friend aware that more than two months ago full evidence was submitted to the Essex County Council, including photostats of the rolls of the manor, showing that from all the evidence available this was a public common?

Mr. Champion: As far as my right hon. Friend is concerned a meeting under the 1908 Act would almost certainly prove abortive, or at least premature, while any dispute of the right of common exists and it would not be possible to summon a meeting until they have satisfied themselves about the existence of common rights.

Remote Areas (Transport)

Mr. R. V. Grimston: asked the Minister of Agriculture what protests he has recently received from agricultural executive committees on the withdrawal of transport facilities in remote rural areas; and what steps he is taking to support the agricultural executive committees in this matter.

Mr. Champion: County agricultural executive committees making representations to my right hon. Friend as they sometimes do—about the withdrawal of transport facilities are usually advised that where public service vehicles are involved, the procedure prescribed in the Road


Traffic Acts should be followed. On the whole that procedure is satisfactory, but in any case my right hon. Friend has no power to intervene.

Mr. Grimston: Is the Minister aware that Wiltshire Agricultural Executive Committee and the Wiltshire branch of the National Farmers' Union have put in a request that a bus service to a village in my constituency, namely, Ridge, should be restored in the interests of agriculture? Having regard to the fact that this service operated for 25 years until it was withdrawn after nationalisation, will the hon. Gentleman press his colleague the Minister of Transport to restore this and similar services?

Mr. Champion: I understand that the Minister of Transport has explained the whole position in recent correspondence with the hon. Member.

Rabbit Traps

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the results of his experiments with suitable rabbit traps to replace the gin-trap; and can he give any indication as to when these alternative traps will be on the market.

Mr. Champion: I cannot, at present, add to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) on 12th July.

Sir T. Moore: While appreciating the humane quantities of the Minister of Agriculture, may I ask if the hon. Gentleman is not aware that the public—including farmers—are becoming very gravely concerned at the continuous use of this barbarous instrument, the gin-trap?

Mr. Champion: My right hon. Friend is very anxious that the experiments taking place should be absolutely complete before we encourage the placing of this instrument on the market.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture the results of the voluntary area schemes initiated under his auspices last year for the reduction of the rabbit population.

Mr. Champion: The work of organising co-operative schemes has made good progress in many counties and is being steadily extended. In some counties good results have already been achieved, but the full effect of the cam-

paign will not be felt until after the autumn attack.

Sir T. Moore: What has been reported as the most successful method of reducing the rabbit population?

Mr. Champion: That is another question.

Mr. Nally: Would my hon. Friend explain the extraordinary circumstances in which rabbits are regarded as vermin? If that is the case, and voluntary area schemes are being encouraged, why is it that the housewife is ruthlessly fleeced when buying dead rabbits, which are regarded by his Department as vermin?

Mr. Champion: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, not for my Department.

Opencast Sites (Restoration)

Mr. Kenyon: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has now completed his examination in consultation with the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners Association of the further steps to be taken to improve the technique of restoration of agricultural land on which opencast coalworking has taken place so as to minimise the loss to food production; and, if so, with what result.

Mr. Champion: Yes, Sir. Those consultations have taken place, and in addition to improvements in the machinery for effective supervision of the restoration work itself, including the arrangement for site meetings between all the interested parties, improved standards of restoration will be brought into force as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made.
The main improvements are, first, that the area on which the topsoil will be separately stripped and preserved for re-spreading will be extended so as to include not only the actual excavated area but also any of the requisitioned land expected to be substantially damaged by the movement of vehicles and plant; second, in deciding to what extent subsoil should be stripped and replaced the distinctions hitherto made between arable and grassland sites will be abandoned; and, finally, after the completion of the soiling operations the sites will be maintained under the supervision of the agricultural Departments for a longer period


of special agricultural treatment with a view to ensuring that the land is handed back in a condition in which it can be satisfactorily farmed under the ordinary rules of good husbandry.
In Scotland, the responsibility for restoring opencast sites rests of course with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and he joins with my right hon. Friend in commending these arrangements to the House, as we have to the agricultural industry, as a real advance in restoration policy which, we consider, goes as far as is reasonably practicable in harmonising the vital and continuing need to win opencast coal with the no less vital need to safeguard the agricultural productivity of the land.

Mr. Tom Brown: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the correct method is adopted when the workmen begin to remove the overburden of the soil in the initial stages of working an opencast site?

Mr. Champion: I gather that a promise to consider that point has been given both by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Mr. Brown: So there will be some improvement?

Mr. Champion: We hope so.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEA FISHING, SUSSEX (POACHING)

Colonel Clarke: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many persons have been summoned, and what fines have been imposed on persons contravening the provisions of the Sea Fishing Industries (Immature Sea Fish) Order, 1948, on the Sussex coast during the year ended 31st March, 1951.

Mr. Champion: Four persons were convicted during this period for offences against the Immature Sea Fish Order, 1948. The offenders were discharged on payment of costs amounting in three cases to three guineas and in the fourth case to one guinea.

Colonel Clarke: In view of the fact that the maximum penalty under this Order is£50, plus confiscation of catch, and I believe, confiscation of gear, and as many of the offenders are foreign, does the hon.

Gentleman consider that these penalties are adequate and will stop this form of poaching?

Mr. Champion: That is another question, which I think ought to be put on the Order Paper.

Colonel Clarke: asked the Minister of Agriculture what cases of poaching in territorial waters by foreign fishing craft on the Sussex coast have been brought to his notice during the year ended 31st March, 1951.

Mr. Champion: None, Sir.

Colonel Clarke: Can the Parliamentary Secretary now answer the supplementary question I put on my previous Question, about foreigners poaching in our waters?

Mr. Champion: The answer has been given that over this period there has been no case. The efficiency of the patrol vessels has, I think, been established.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (NEW ORDER)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. VIANT: , —To ask the Minister of Labour whether he has yet reached agreement with both sides of industry as to the future of Statutory Order No. 1305; and if he is in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Speaker: I gather that the Minister of Labour wishes to answer Question No. 82.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Robens): Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that as a result of my discussions I am in a position to present to the House a new Order carrying the broad agreement of both sides of industry to replace the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order, commonly known as Order 1305. I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the public-spirited and statesmanlike approach to this problem that has been shown by the British Employers' Confederation, the General Council of the Trades Union Congress and the representatives of the Nationalised Industries in the course of these discussions.
The House will recall that the existing Order was a war-time measure, continued


in force after 1945 with the agreement of both sides of industry on the understanding that it could be revoked at any time at the request of either side. In my opinion, the time has arrived when, for a number of reasons, the Order must be reviewed. To take one instance, experience has shown that the enforcement of penal sanctions against persons taking part in strikes and lockouts gives rise to extreme difficulties.
I have now made a new Order, to come into effect on 14th August, which will revoke Order 1305 and will provide a ready means for dealing with disputes that cannot otherwise be settled. The provisions of the Order are framed to develop and strengthen the voluntary systems of negotiation and to uphold the sanctity of agreements and awards.
With this in view, access to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal which is set up will be limited to employers, organisations of employers and trade unions that habitually take part in the settlement of terms and conditions of employment through voluntary machinery established in the industry where such machinery exists. If there is no such machinery, access will be limited to the employer concerned and the trade union that represents a substantial proportion of the workers.
The Order contains no provision prohibiting lockouts or strikes but I will have discretion to refuse access to the Tribunal where action is being taken resulting in a stoppage of work or in a substantial breach of agreement between the parties. Such matters as the employment or non-employment of a worker and claims for reinstatement are excluded from the Order. Experience has shown that such matters are not susceptible to settlement by compulsory arbitration.
There will be no possibility of using the machinery as an appeal against an award under the Industrial Courts Act or settlements reached through the voluntary machinery. While there will no longer be a general obligation on all employers to observe recognised terms and conditions of employment or terms and conditions not less favourable than the recognised terms and conditions, the Order provides machinery for settling issues of this kind in respect of particular employers. Copies of the Order are immediately available in the Vote Office.
This new Order is experimental. That is our way of doing things in this country. I have informed the representatives of the organisations with whom I have had discussions that if at any time either side wish the Order to be discontinued it will be reviewed immediately. But I venture to hope that this may not be necessary and that the Order may provide a piece of machinery suitable for our peacetime requirements and capable of rendering the maximum assistance to industry in the settlement of disputes peaceably without recourse to lockout or strike.
Our industrial relations system rests on the voluntary principle and it is my hope that that principle and that system will be strengthened by this new Order. No piece of machinery can, however, be successful without good will and I have endeavoured to devise an Order which will command the good will of both sides and operate to the advantage of the community as a whole.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in general, it will be our desire to give this Order a fair wind? I am sure that he will realise, however, that we must first obtain a copy and then study the Order before we make any detailed comments upon it. We certainly accept the Minister's view that the voluntary bargaining system should be maintained in this country and supported on all occasions. In so far as the Minister has said that this Order supports that principle, we shall certainly be with him. Further, we are gratified that, to use the Minister's expression, both sides of industry have supported this Order. We should wish, as His Majesty's Opposition, to give our general support to the principle of it.
I should also like to welcome the fact that the Minister has stated that the Order contains no provision prohibiting lock-outs or strikes. That is in accordance with what we have already expressed and in accordance with the policy which we had already adopted as ours, so we welcome that development which we think is an improvement upon a situation which, as the Minister said in the earlier part of his statement, was rapidly proving unworkable.

Mr. Viant: I take it that the Minister is endeavouring, as far as possible, to get back to pre-war conditions, and to


trust more and more to the confidence of both sides in avoiding, averting and settling disputes when they arise, and that this machinery is devised wholly to that end.

Mr. Robens: Yes, Sir. Broadly, that is true. My own views about this matter are, I think, well known. I believe in voluntary settlements. I hope that, as a result of this Order, wherever there is machinery for voluntary agreements, both sides of industry will put into that machinery provision for arbitration, so that there will be no need for reference to the new Tribunal at all. I believe that both sides of industry are quite capable of settling the bulk of the problems that arise within their own machinery. I hope that, as a result of this Order, we shall strengthen that view.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman described the Order as experimental. In view of the immense importance of this subject, will he consider whether it is one that ought, in the long run, to be dealt with by Statutory Instrument or whether it should not be dealt with by a Bill which can be debated and, possibly, amended in this House? I ask him to consider that from the point of view of a permanent solution. Would he tell the House exactly what provision the new Order inserts in place of the old paragraph 5 in Order No. 1305—the paragraph which imposed the obligation to observe recognised conditions? What provision is in the new Order to secure the enforcement on both sides of generally recognised conditions?

Mr. Robens: The answer to the latter part of that question is that if there is an employer who is not observing the recognised terms and conditions, then that is a matter to be called in issue. Accordingly, it will be referred to me and, if there is voluntary machinery for settling a matter of that kind, I can refer it to that machinery. If it is a case of a non-federated employer, or one where there is no machinery, then I can refer it to the Tribunal, which I must do within 14 days. The Tribunal then has two tasks which it may perform. If it decides that the agreement should cover this employer and that this employer should observe the recognised terms and conditions, it may decide and award accordingly; or, secondly it may decide that he should

operate terms and conditions no less favourable than those set out in the general agreement. With this Order, each case would have to be taken separately and proved on its merits, and not automatically, as it was under the old Order.
With regard to whether this ought to be incorporated in permanent legislation, that is a point of view which is worth considering. I should think that, where we are dealing with a matter affecting the lives of many people, it would be as well to allow an experimental period, and that, when we have found out what happens, we might change it slightly. I do not know. The Order provides flexibility and, in a few years' time, it may well be that we might cover this in permanent legislation.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Could we be informed of the date of this agreement? Am I correct in understanding that it is to be put into force on 14th August? If so, does that mean that it is not subject to the affirmative Resolution when the Order is laid on the Table?

Mr. Robens: No, Sir. It does come into operation on 14th August, but it does allow the 40 Sitting days in which a Prayer can be moved and a debate can take place.

Sir H. Williams: Many strikes have been called unofficial strikes. Apparently, the people who appear before the Tribunal must appear through their trade unions, but these are the people who are in dispute with their unions. What is to be done where people strike against the advice of their own unions?

Mr. Robens: This new Order does not take away any of the powers which the Minister now has, or, indeed, any of the existing influence which he exerts—because, although he may not have powers, he can exert a moral influence. There will be many cases where people will not observe what has been laid down and in these cases we must do as we have always done, bring the two sides together and preach a little sweet reasonableness. I am certain—and things are moving in this direction— that there is a greater sense of responsibility on the part of both workers and employers in relation to industrial disputes. It is the basis of our democracy to encourage self-discipline among individuals.

Mr. P. Bartley: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether this new Order makes any provision for the reference of disputes in regard to the recognition of trade unions to the Industrial Disputes Board?

Mr. Robens: No, Sir; it does not. This refers only to wages and conditions.

Sir Edward Boyle: As many tens of thousands of His Majesty's subjects will be interested in the announcement which the Minister has just made, will he consider publishing a popular leaflet explaining, in very simple terms, the differences between the old Order and the new one?

Mr. Robens: That is worth taking into account. I rather think that either the trade unions or the employers may have taken that up, but I will certainly have a look at it.

Mr. Pannell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, under the old machinery, any recognised bodies setting up their own machinery—I have in mind particularly local authorities and the Co-operative movement—have the right to recognition of that machinery and need not have to go to the arbitration tribunal? May I ask him whether that principle of voluntary agreement is to be continued? Secondly, are any bodies of workers to be kept outside this Order? Will it, for instance, be possible for employees and staff of this House, for whom trade union recognition has not yet been accorded, to take such action as they think necessary under the new procedure?

Mr. Robens: I was not aware that members of the staff of the House were not permitted to join a trade union. That

is another issue, and I take note of it. In relation to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the ordinary voluntary machinery is something that I want to strengthen. If there is, within that voluntary machinery, something which provides for arbitration and there is a dispute, then it will go to that part of the machinery to be settled, and there will be no appeal from that to the Tribunal. In point of fact, we are now giving to the voluntary arbitration machinery the same force that we gave to the independent tribunal's award.

Mr. Mikardo: While joining in the welcome given to my right hon. Friend's statement, which I am sure will be universally welcomed throughout the country, may I ask if he is aware that, where the machinery in the past has fallen under criticism and created difficulties, it was generally not because the machinery was bad, but because it was slow? Will he do everything in his power to ensure that the new arrangements will operate somewhat faster than the old ones have done?

Mr. Robens: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that apparent slowness in the working of machinery has caused a great deal of frustration and irritation among the people who have to abide by it. I have cut down the 21 days to 14 days, and I do not think that we ought to have a period much below that. I will use all my influence in all these cases to see that matters are dealt with as promptly as possible, because I firmly believe that prompt settlements in negotiations taking place on matters at issue will prevent many of the industrial disputes that now arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

DEFENCE (COLONIAL MANPOWER)

12.16 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: May I, at the outset, point out that there is no representative of the Colonial Office here today? This matter which I am raising primarily concerns the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the right hon. Gentleman is not here, nor is any member of his Ministry. I do not know whether the Secretary of State for War is going to deal with this.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): indicated assent.

Mr. Gammans: The Colonial Secretary rang me up the other day inquiring what were the matters which I proposed to raise, so that he might try to answer them in detail, but the right hon. Gentleman is not here, and I do not know whether the Secretary of State for War has been informed of the matters which I propose to raise and is in a position to deal with them. I would point out that it is an extraordinarily discourteous way of dealing with an Adjournment debate of this sort, and I hope that some adequate explanation will be forthcoming why the Secretary of State for the Colonies is not here.
I need not detain the House for very long, because I am not going to say anything new. All the matters to which I want to refer today have been brought up on this side of the House time and again during the last five years, and it is because we are dissatisfied with the action which the Government have taken, or rather with their lack of action, that we feel that we ought to try to extract from them, before the House rises for the Recess, some more authoritative statement than we have had so far.
It is astounding to us on this side of the House that at this time, when we at home and the people in the Colonial Empire are faced with the menace of the complete destruction of their liberty and of all that we understand by it, so little use has been made of colonial man-

power and so little opportunity has been given to the colonial peoples to play their part in the common defence of what we both believe. It is astounding to us that practically nothing has been done. Time and again we have made representations, and time and again the Government have made promises, but they have done nothing effective.
I hope that no one in this debate will raise any question that we are asking the Colonies to fight for us or that we are fighting for them in this worldwide struggle against Communism. I would point out to the Government that it is not very much use trying to improve the social conditions of the colonial peoples by granting them self-government if all this is to be swept away in the march of Communism across the world, and certainly all hopes of self-government for the people of Africa, Malaya and the West Indies would just disappear if Europe were to be conquered by the Communists. The frontiers of a self-governing Nigeria, the frontiers of the Gold Coast, are today on the Elbe, and it is well that we and the Colonial people should recognise our common interest and our common danger.
There is one other aspect to all this, namely, that it is the declared policy of all political parties in this House that the peoples of the Colonial Empire shall gradually attain self-government. I would venture to point out that one of the requisites of self-government, one of the responsibilities and rights of self-government, is the rights of people to be able to defend themselves; and unless in the course of our evolution towards self-government we provide the people of the Colonial Empire with the opportunity, knowledge and training to defend themselves, we are detracting from an essential principle of self-government.
Let me make it clear at the beginning that, when speaking about military service, I mean voluntary military service. We in this country are subjecting ourselves, I think quite rightly, to compulsory military service. We are not asking the people of the Colonial Empire to do that. All I am pleading is that they should be given the opportunity of standing by our side in this common defence.
Let me run over briefly what we have suggested in the past five years. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will deal with these points one by one when he replies.


The first thing we suggested was that a large field army should be raised in the Colonial Empire. Here we especially think of Africa, but not entirely of Africa. In a debate not long ago, I said to the right hon. Gentleman that I was convinced that we could raise very quickly in Africa two complete divisions, with a chance of more to follow.
We shall not raise two divisions, certainly we shall not raise more than two, unless the War Office are prepared to tackle the question of officers and their training. I do not believe that the present system of the seconding of officers from the British Army is satisfactory. To my mind the only proper solution is that officers should be raised for the Colonial Army alone, as used to be done in the case of the Indian Army.
This is a rather dull and drab world today. We could place before the youth of this country a chance to serve in a great Colonial Army. If that were done, I believe that we should attract the best of the youth of our land, as in the old days of the Indian Army, for a field army in Africa and elsewhere, where there is a great reservoir of capable and loyal raw material only too willing and anxious to have the opportunity to enlist.
Remember what the two African Divisions did in Burma. When war broke out, there were 42,000 men in the Colonial Army. When the war ended there were more than ten times that number. If that could be done during the war something of that sort could surely be done now. It is not only the military service that I think would be of value. If it were combined with vocational training, which we had not really the time to undertake during the war, it would, over a comparatively short period, have a great effect in raising the whole level of technical knowledge in the Colonies.
What is being done about this field army? There are a few battalions of the King's African Rifles and the Royal West African Frontier Force. I notice that two battalions of the King's African Rifles have gone, or are about to go, to Malaya. That is rather interesting and somewhat amusing. It was not many months ago that the right hon. Gentleman assured the House that to send any was completely impossible and undesirable. Now they have gone.
These battalions in West and East Africa are widely scattered in isolated detachments. They get little brigade training; they certainly get no divisional training. Surely, if that field army is to be capable of taking the field really effectively, we should, somewhere in Africa, preferably in East Africa, create a great imperial Aldershot, to which these men could go for proper divisional training. I hope that we shall hear something about that from the right hon. Gentleman. I hope, in that connection, that he will tell us what has happened about the West Indian Regiment. He has been asked many questions about it, and the last answer he gave was that the colonial Governments concerned were being consulted. Have they been consulted, and if so with what result?
The second aspect which we on this side of the House have raised is whether or not it would be possible to enlist some garrison battalions from among those peoples with a less warlike tradition, battalions which would be primarily used not so much as a field force but for relieving the British garrisons all over the world. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us today how many battalions and batteries of the British Army are scattered all over the world doing purely garrison work.
I know there is one in the West Indies. I see that the Scots Guards have just gone to Tripoli. Several battalions have gone to the North African shore, and there are battalions in Aden. These men are doing purely garrison work. They have no divisional training, no brigade training and no opportunity to study the latest weapons. My contention is that their places could be taken by special recruited battalions from all over the Colonial Empire.
If that were done, I would guarantee that the right hon. Gentleman could raise another division of British troops from that source alone. Goodness only knows, when we consider that we are only going to send four and a half divisions of troops to Germany after five years of conscription, we could certainly do with another division of British troops either in Germany or in the central strategic reserve in this country.
During the Whitsun Recess, I went to the Suez Canal zone and spent a couple


of days with the British Army. What interested me especially was to find—I did not know it before—that there were six battalions of Mauritians doing garrison duty, about 6,000 men recruited in Mauritius solely for garrison duty. The sort of jobs they were doing were protecting the barbed wire, looking after the stores and doing a vast variety of work which would otherwise have to be done by the men from this country. What can be done with 6,000 Mauritians can be done on a wider scale in almost every part of the world in which the British Army is stationed, I should be glad to know how successful the Mauritians have been, and if they have been successful, as I think they have, why that opportunity should not be extended elsewhere.
The third aspect of this matter is the question of direct enlistment in the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Army. Let me take the example of the West Indies. In the last war more than 5,000 men from the West Indies enlisted in the R.A.F. Some served in this country and others all over the world. Today, if a man, a British subject in the West Indies, wants to enlist in the R.A.F., he has to come to this country at his own expense to be medically examined.
We have raised this matter several times. A miserable kind of unimaginative reply has always been given. It is causing grave annoyance in the West Indies that loyal British subjects are denied the right to enlist except at tremendous expense to themselves. Whether the right hon. Gentleman realises it or not, the thought is that there is a colour bar against men from the West Indies. I believe that we ought to enable anyone from the West Indies or any other part of the Empire who wishes to enlist to be medically examined on the spot.
I know that there are difficulties, but when one considers our worldwide commitments today and the shortage of manpower, one realises that there are many parts of the world in which men from the West Indies and the tropics could serve with great distinction without any question of climate entering into the matter.
Then there is the position in respect of the Royal Navy. I believe that we have four or five sloops on the West India Station. These are manned by men

from this country. Yet in the Cayman Islands, Jamaica—every one of the West Indian Islands—there are people with the tradition of the sea. I guarantee that the Government could go to the West Indies and raise the whole crews of those sloops to serve constantly in those waters and relieve the men from this country to come back and serve here in the way that I have indicated.
To return to the question of the Suez Canal, as the right hon. Gentleman knows there are some tens of thousands of Egyptians employed by the British Army in the Canal Zone in various capacities. Some of them are in workshops, but many thousands of them are driving motor lorries. These men are civilians. Suppose the Army were mobilised and at war. Suppose some of the Army had to go to Persia. What would happen about the drivers? The Army is completely immobile. They could not take civilians, and in any case they are not British subjects.
When I asked the right hon. Gentleman the other day what he proposed to do about this matter, he said that arrangements had been made. I suppose that what he really meant was that men will have to be sent out from this country. Why is it that we cannot enlist men from the Colonial Empire to do what these Egyptians are doing? Why cannot we enlist Maltese? They served with great bravery and distinction during the war. There is a great unemployment problem in Malta, and I am sure it would be possible to raise not only in Malta but in Cyprus and in every part of the Colonial Empire, men with the necessary ability to take the place of those Egyptian drivers. I hope that we shall hear something about that matter.
My last point relates to re-armament, and it does not concern the right hon. Gentleman directly. I suppose it concerns his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. I hope he has got some sort of brief from the Minister of Supply, because this matter has been raised, I think, on both sides of the House and it has certainly been raised by me on several occasions. My point is this: Why are we not making better use of colonial manpower in our re-armament? To take this country to start with, we are bringing people from Italy to work in the mines and, I understand, on the railways.
Why not enrol Maltese—our own British subjects? No satisfactory explanation has ever been given. But it is in the Colonies themselves that we can make most use of manpower for re-armament if we have the wit to do it.
My suggestion, which I have made before, is that a number of re-armament orders should be placed with the Colonies. In some cases it may mean building shadow factories. We are doing that here. We are putting up the money for that in this country. Why not put up the money in countries where there is a great surplus of manpower? Before the war, in India we had small arsenals dotted all over the place. They used to make rifles and small arms ammunition, and in fact they did better than that. Why cannot that be done in a Colony like Jamaica which has a chronic unemployment problem? Why cannot we have a factory there to make some of the new 280 ammunition, or the.303 for that matter? Barbados is another Colony with chronic unemployment. Whatever may be done locally, those people cannot be absorbed in their own Colony. In Malta, too, there is a serious unemployment problem.
When I asked the Secretary of State about this, he gave an answer which—I do not know if he knows it—caused very great offence in many parts of the Colonial Empire. He said that they should concentrate on primary production. The Colonial Empire is not prepared to concentrate only on primary production. They do not see why they should be denied the chance to have secondary industries. Here at a time when we are re-arming and our own manpower is fully engaged, we do not seem to have the wit or the imagination to take advantage of the colonial resources.
All sorts of excuses have been put forward in the last two or three years when this matter has been raised. We have been told that the Colonial Governments must be consulted. We were also told once that the Government thought it a good idea to raise a Colonial Army but that it was no good raising an army without equipment. I suppose that is true, but I would point out that for the first year, or perhaps even longer, battalions could be raised and trained with very little equipment. That is an excuse, and it is certainly not a reason.
Another alibi is that the matter does not concern the Department with which the matter is raised. The Secretary of State for the Colonies says, "The raising of soldiers is nothing to do with me." When the Secretary of State for War is asked about an armaments factory, he says, "It is nothing to do with me; it is for the Ministry of Supply." The Secretary of State for War, who is now with us, embodies all his colleagues and I trust that he can deal with all these matters.
That is the background of what I want to submit to the House. We have had all these excuses. What is the real reason for this inactivity? To be quite frank, it appears to us that the real reason is a lack of imagination and of administrative competence on the part of the Government in getting the various Departments together. It is certainly a lack of drive. It is to give the Secretary of State—speaking, I hope, on behalf of the whole Government—a chance to answer these criticisms that we are having this debate today. I hope that he will be able to deal effectively with the points I have raised and to satisfy us that he is about to do much better in the future than he has been able to do in the past.

12.36 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) for having raised this matter, not only on this occasion but on a number of other occasions, because he has pressed this subject in the House over an extensive period.
It seems to me that there are two overriding considerations which the Government have to take into account. One is the shortage of manpower in this country, and the other—a matter to which the Government have devoted some attention —is the development of the Colonies. These two matters in this case seem to be closely related. To take the question of the shortage of manpower in this country, we are endeavouring to stretch our available manpower to the very utmost. There is a shortage of recruits to the Armed Forces and we are having to use all sorts of methods, such as the National Service scheme and so forth, to extend the armed preparedness of this country. We seem at the same time to be overlooking the fact that there is a very large


source of manpower available in the Colonies on which we might draw.
We are seeing development taking place in the Colonies where the people are very anxious to take more and more responsibility for their own affairs. That is a right and proper development which the Government have done a great deal to encourage, but it surely tends to emphasise the need for allowing these people to extend their opportunities to take responsibility by letting them realise the full consequences of self-government and all that it implies, which must necessarily include the opportunity to defend themselves as well as to develop their country. I suggest that this is a subject to which my right hon. Friend should give a great deal of careful thought and attention.
There are two ways in which this problem could be tackled. Both of them have been touched on by the hon. Member for Hornsey. One is to form units in the Colonies themselves. The other is to give facilities in addition to those which have been given so far to those men who wish to volunteer to come to this country and join the Armed Forces here. There are difficulties in the way of that, as we know.
One is that facilities have not been provided in the Colonies themselves for the screening and recruitment of men to ensure that those who do come here will be a credit to their own Colonies and will be able to fit into the highly developed and well-trained forces when they come here. Mistakes were made during the war, in the case of Jamaica, for instance, when opportunities were given to men to come to this country and it was found when they arrived here that they were not suitable. That points to a great need for a proper screening system.
This would help to bridge the gap at the present time when our own productive demands in this country are so great. If we are to use the whole of our available manpower in this country and in the Colonies to the best advantage, we should concentrate here on the production side and recruit men from the available sources from overseas—there is vast unemployment in some of these Colonies like Jamaica and others mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornsey—giving them the chance to do the job in the Armed Forces for which they could be trained quickly. We know that they have

not the plant and machinery in their own Colonies to extend production. They have not the implements to farm efficiently even for increasing supplies of their primary products. But they can be trained rapidly to fit into an armed force, which would free our people here to concentrate on the job which they can do best—that is, to increase production both for civilian and for defence purposes at home.
It seems to me that there are overwhelming advantages in following some such suggestions as have been put forward in this debate, both for the men themselves and for their countries and that, consequently, these suggestions should 'be investigated with the greatest care. We know that those who were in the Armed Forces during the war benefited tremendously from the discipline, the training and the sense of objective which they gained, and to some extent from the educational training which was given.
We know that afterwards a certain amount of difficulty arose when these men returned to conditions which they had known before joining the Forces— to the farms, the villages and to their homes; and they suffered from a great sense of dissatisfaction because the schemes for re-settlement were not developed as carefully as they should have been. If the scheme suggested by the hon. Member for Hornsey is adopted, I hope the Minister will also take into account the need to extend the re-settlement provisions so as to ensure that these men fit into civilian life when they return to it after their service.

12.42 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries): I think the House will agree that there are great difficulties in sending colonial troops to serve abroad in time of peace. That does not apply to all Colonies, but it applies to some. Whether or not we share racial prejudices, it is stupid to ignore them, and we must bear those difficulties in mind. There are also difficulties from the point of view of the family life of the troops concerned.
At the same time, it seems to me that that does not exempt the right hon. Gentleman from the need to have available and ready expeditionary forces which can be used when an emergency occurs. was very glad indeed to hear my hon.


Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) deal with the question of divisional training. The mechanisation of the various activities in the army has increased enormously. Training in the mechanical side and the wireless side of an army is immensely important. Unless we have a real basis for that, based on solid training in peace-time, we cannot hope to have any kind of expeditionary force available for many years after the beginning of a war. That is one of the ways in which we ought to be considering the development of the Colonial Forces at the present time.
With backward countries, one of the obvious problems is to bridge the centuries in a short time, and undoubtedly this kind of training would have an enormous effect in doing that, provided always, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. G. Cooper) said, that consideration is given at the same time to the employment of these men when they have finished their military service. That is extremely important and any satisfactory use of Colonial Forces must be based on the consideration of what is to happen to these men when ultimately they are released.
From Roman times onwards, the use of the veteran has been one of the greatest problems to face a great Power, and an intelligent policy of resettlement—whether it be in towns, with the special skills learned in the Army, or whether it be on the land— is the very core of the use of a Colonial Army. This is a long-term policy and it is that kind of policy which makes it so vitally important, as my hon. Friend has said, that there should be the very closest co-ordination between the Defence Services, the Defence Ministers, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Minister of Supply and so on.
Finally, I suggest that we shall not get these forces at all until we adjust the level of pay. That is something which has not been done sufficiently for the Colonial Forces and, in particular, for the East African Forces since the war. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have something to say about that, too.

12.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): I make no complaint whatsoever that this subject has been raised again this afternoon, because it is one of

great interest and great importance. In the spring we debated it at greater length than we can today, but it is interesting to look at the subject again now. Not a very long time has elapsed since the debate, but there are one or two things which have occurred since that time and which I can report to the House.
First, I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) about who is to reply to the debate. It was the choice of the Colonial Secretary that we should reply. His view was that this is essentially a defence matter and a defence subject, and I have little doubt that had he not been out of the country, as the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence would have been here. On the whole, I think it is a subject upon which the reply should be made on behalf of the Service Departments, although, of course, it intimately concerns the Colonial Office as well.
Coming to the matter of the hon. Member's speech, the first point he made was that he wanted to raise a large field army in Africa—or mainly in Africa. That is a rather more wholesale way of going about it than we think practicable at the present time. It is, of course, a question of degree, but I could not follow him when he said that if we went at it on this scale very little equipment would be needed. If we were to raise a large field army, very considerable amounts of equipment would be needed and, as the House knows, our re-armament programme is strained to the full to equip, one after another, the formations, the divisions, the ships, which we are raising here.

Mr. Gammans: I did not say that no equipment would be needed. What I said was that at least a year's training could be done with new recruits before very much equipment would be needed.

Mr. Strachey: For a year, perhaps, that might be so, but it would be much more than a year before we could spare from our own needs here the equipment for a large field army raised in this way, and that, I think, is one of the reasons we could not give this matter priority over our existing re-armament tasks.
On the other hand, it is far from the case that we are doing nothing about this, and I would remind the House of what the hon. Member himself mentioned—that two African battalions from East


Africa are going to Malaya. I do not know what words of mine he had in mind when he alleged that I had said that this was quite impossible. Last night, in readiness for this debate, I re-read my speech of 11th March, and I found no such words. As the House is aware, these battalions are going to Malaya and I think they prove very useful there. Moreover, that means that two further battalions are being raised in East Africa for East African purposes to replace the battalions going to Malaya. As a result, there is a net increase of two battalions and the African Forces are to that extent immediately being expanded.
The hon. Gentleman touched on another point which I think is of importance— that of the officering and noncommissioned officering of these Forces. Partly, indeed, this must be done from British sources, from British officers who take up this work; and it is most valuable, and indeed indispensable, work for them to take up; but it must also be done in the training establishments in the Colonies and in the territories themselves.
If anything in the way of a large field force is ever developed in Africa, it will undoubtedly be necessary that very considerable training establishments should be set up there. I have seen in Malaya the Malay Regiment and the very fine Malay officers who are being trained, many of whom are now fully trained and operating in that country. As the House knows, battalion by battalion that force is being increased in size today.
On the broader issue, I entirely agree with the hon. Member that the raising, in the world as it is, of these forces in the Colonies and territories is a step towards their self-government. It is, if it is properly done, in the right way and with the right methods, undoubtedly a progressive step which enables those territories to take another step forward on the road to nationhood, and I welcome it for that reason.
The next specific point to which the hon. Member referred was the West Indies. The position there is that we contemplate a second battalion being raised there, and so far as the Government here are concerned, we are definitely in favour of that. We are now discussing it with

the local Governments in the West Indies, and I have good expectations that those discussions will bear fruit.
The hon. Member next passed to the question of garrison duties by forces raised in this way. There again, it is a question of degree, and he instanced the case, for example, of the Canal Zone, where we use a very considerable number of Mauritians for this very purpose raised in this way. Surely that shows that we are certainly not against the raising and use in suitable circumstances of men from different Colonies and territories for these purposes. After all, as I told the House last March, there are between 60,000 and 70,000 men under arms of all kinds in the Colonial Forces today, which is not an inconsiderable figure, and it certainly shows that we are more than willing to raise and use these forces whenever we see suitable opportunities.
I should like to contradict the statement that Middle East Command would be immobilised if it had to move to some other area without the Egyptian drivers and other men of the same type whom it employs. As I have said before, we have that problem thoroughly in mind, and we have arrangements which certainly mean that that Command is not immobile.

Mr. Gammans: May I put it this way? Certainly it would be immobile there until the drivers went from this country?

Mr. Strachey: I do not think that the hon. Member must assume that; but it is a fair point, if he likes, that if we had the Mauritians—or they might not be suitable, but enlisted men from some area of the Commonwealth—doing this function, there might be a saving of British manpower; and in suitable opportunities we are certainly thoroughly in favour of that. It is done very often by raising enlisted personnel, as it is done in Malaya. There and elsewhere we find R.E.M.E. workshops and the like manned by locally enlisted men doing this work, and certainly saving the manpower available from British troops.
Then he passed on to the question of direct enlistment, in particular in connection with the Royal Air Force. The Secretary of State for Air tells me that he is contemplating— he cannot give any commitment, but he is contemplating— the question of facilities for recruiting outside this country, which would be, of


course, a quite new departure, and an experiment which, I think, will be very interesting if it proves possible to make it.
The hon. Member then passed to an even wider field, that of colonial manpower, not directly in connection with the Services themselves but in connection with the re-armament programme, and he pressed quite strongly the theme which he has raised before—and other hon. Members have raised it—of the import of manpower into this country from the colonies and territories.
In that connection my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. G. Cooper) and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) —and they were right to say so —emphasised that both in military training and in industrial training we do impart some real benefits to the native population whom we train. There again, we get social progress as a by-product, but a most welcome by-product, of the whole process. I am told by the Minister of Labour that, on the whole, the type of manpower, which would not be skilled, of course, which we could import from those areas would not be very suitable for our purposes in this country.
Then the hon. Member for Hornsey asked why, if we do not want to bring the men to the factories here, we should not take the factories to the men, and establish industrial production, secondary industries and the like, in the West Indies or other suitable places. Again, in suitable circumstances there is no need to rule out that possibility, but I would repeat, as I said in the last debate, that it does seem to me that today, when the whole world is suffering from the most acute shortage of materials, of primary products, it would rather be putting the cart before the horse to establish industries in those areas.

Mr. Gammans: I am sure that it is only because the right hon. Gentleman does not know those territories that he says that. In Jamaica, Barbados, Malta, the limiting factor is the land. It is not possible to get any more out of that land. There still remains the unemployment problem.

Mr. Strachey: With respect, I was at the Ministry of Food, and far from the view that those territories could not expand sugar production, they were very strongly pressed to expand their sugar

production, and are doing so. As the hon. Member says, primary production, agriculture, mining and the like, in those territories is their best bet. I know that people do think that there is something inferior somehow about agriculture—primary production—as against industry, but it is a most extraordinary delusion.
It is a delusion born from the fact, if I may say so—and I am bound to say this, though it does raise a political point —that in the past those forms of primary production were greatly exploited. The terms of trade were so favourable to industrial countries that the primary agricultural producers and the men engaged in mining very often get a very poor return. But certainly things are not like that today. On the contrary, the terms of trade have swung very far in the other direction, and it is the industrial user who, one may almost say, is in danger of being exploited today.
I am quite sure that the standard of life in those areas can be raised far quicker by a rapid expansion of agriculture and by primary production, which today are extremely profitable with a very high rate of return, and it is in this field, both for our own re-armament programme and for the interests of those territories, that I see their future. It is surely a great delusion to think that all progress comes from the factory. Today the farm, and the tropical farm above all, is one of the most important and, I believe, one of the most lucrative parts of the productive machine of the world. It is in that, and in getting metals, that I should like to see that main economic contribution, in their own interests and in ours.

TROOPS, KOREA (PAY AND ALLOWANCES)

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Driberg (Maldon): All of us hope that by the time this House meets again the war in Korea will be over, and that some at least of the troops who are now there will be on their way home. That hope is not, I am afraid, very bright today. According to the latest news from Washington, Mr. Acheson has just issued a statement about the 38th Parallel which seems to be in flat contradiction to an assurance given on behalf of the Government in another place last Tuesday.
However, so long as the war in Korea does go on, presumably the Forces of the United Nations, including British Forces, will remain there, disregarding the gibe of the egregious Dr. Syngman Rhee that they have outstayed their welcome. Indeed, I am of the opinion that, great as is the misery and suffering of the people of Korea themselves, it would be to some extent even greater if there had not been British troops there to act as a restraining factor, with their decency and their kindliness, on some of our less civilised—if I may use the word—Allies.
When troops of different nations are fighting side by side, in close proximity, any disparity in their respective rates of pay becomes more noticeable. Precise assimilation of the pay and allowances of different national forces is probably impossible while those national forces are nationally maintained, for, as everybody knows, the pay that they receive is related roughly to the cost of living and the average civilian rates of pay in their own countries. None the less, this anomaly does become much more sharp, and even flagrant, in a three such as the force of which we are speaking, a United Nations force. Only yesterday it was stated in this House, and not denied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in his answer, that the pay of other ranks in the French and the Greek Forces in Korea has now been raised to the American level.
On this ground alone, it seems to me, public opinion here would welcome some action by His Majesty's Government to level up the pay or allowances of our own men in Korea, even if such action involved some risk of that terrible process known to cautious Treasury officials as "opening the door." I think it is perfectly seemly and perfectly legitimate to make a special case of Korea, as things are just now. I have the highest regard for the troops elsewhere—in Malaya, for instance—but one has only to compare the casualty figures in Malaya and in Korea to realise that there is every reason to treat Korea as a special case.
It is now nearly a year since the first British troops arrived in. Korea. Since then they have been fighting there in a climate of unexampled severity. Their

gallantry and their restraint have been a shining example amid the appalling squalor, carnage, desolation and demoralisation around them. For almost all that time, whenever Parliament has been in Session a number of hon. Members on both sides of this House have been pressing the War Office on this question of what I may crudely call simply "getting some more money" for the troops in Korea. We have been moved to do so, not only because of the anomaly that I have already mentioned—the disparity between the pay of the different national contingents there—but because of the special circumstances that the first British troops to land in Korea went there from Hong Kong.
As soon as they arrived in Korea their first reward, as it were, for getting into the combat zone and into the fighting line was to find, as it seemed to them, that their pay had actually been cut. Now, we know in this House, because it has been argued out and explained again and again, that it was not actually a cut in pay; but there certainly was a cut in the net total sum paid out to those troops, because once they had left Hong Kong and arrived in Korea they were no longer entitled, under the well-known Treasury and Service Department arrangements, to draw the local overseas allowance, the L.O.A., payable to them in Hong Kong and based on a careful estimate of the extra cost of living in Hong Kong, and the cost of the various goods that troops would normally be buying there themselves.
Of course, the troops in Korea did not understand this Treasury argument; it was never explained to them, and there was, therefore, this rather regrettable slap in the face for them as soon as they got there. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is to reply today, does not under-estimate the importance of these psychological considerations.
Now, I need not describe in any elaborate detail the many attempts that hon. Members have made, at Question time and otherwise, to persuade the Secretary of State for War to find some legitimate case for paying this L.O.A. In the last few months these Questions have related chiefly to N.A.A.F.I. prices in Korea. I should think it would be hardly an exaggeration to say that there have been hundreds of Questions in this


House about N.A.A.F.I. prices and about L.O.A. in general.
On the question of N.A.A.F.I. prices, the Secretary of State for War, while admitting that some prices are higher in Korea, summed it up by saying that the troops there were better off in some respects and worse off in others. I am rather afraid that that may be an oversimplification, because on Tuesday, in reply to a Question, my right hon. Friend published in HANSARD a comparative table showing N.A.A.F.I. prices in Korea and in Germany, in B.A.O.R.
In that table there are 45 items, of which 29 are more expensive in Korea than in Germany, and only five are more expensive in Germany than in Korea. Now it is true that the five which are more expensive in Germany than in Korea include the single item which is, I suppose, the most popular of all—cigarettes. But the difference there is only ld.; cigarettes cost 11d. for 20 in Korea as compared with 1s. for 20 in Germany.
On the other hand, there is a whole range of items which cost substantially more to the troops in Korea. Condensed milk costs Is. 4d. in Germany and Is. 6d. in Korea; equipment cleaner, which they have got to have, costs 5d. in Germany and 6d. in Korea; a shaving brush costs 4s. 9d. in Germany and 5s. 4d. in Korea; a 3 oz. tablet of "Life-buoy" soap costs 4½d. in Germany as against 9d. for a 4 oz. tablet in Korea.
Surely N.A.A.F.I. can devise some way of levelling out these prices so that those who are in the worst discomfort and the greatest danger do not have to pay the most for these simple articles of everyday use? Even if we can understand the explanation of it, which was also given yesterday by my right hon. Friend, the very fact that it is so is surely repugnant to our feelings.
The main point about the N.A.A.F.I. prices, however, is the bearing they have on the possibility of granting a local overseas allowance for the troops in Korea. That allowance, when paid to men serving in the tropics, takes cognisance of all sorts of things which, I agree, the troops in Korea do not need and cannot get. The list placed by my right hon. Friend in the Library showed, for instance, that it took cognisance of such articles as white dinner-jackets,

cummerbunds, and golf-club fees. Obviously the troops in Korea do not need those and cannot get them. Therefore, on that basis, I admit, there is no case for the full L.O.A., equivalent to that paid in Hong Kong or Singapore or some other more civilised place.
It has been said again and again, however, that although there is not much for the troops in Korea to spend their money on, they can spend it at N.A.A.F.I. on the goods listed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Would it not be possible, therefore, to grant them a modest L.O.A. simply to cover these somewhat inflated N.A.A.F.I. prices? In connection with that, I want also to ask my hon Friend two further questions.
What is the L.O.A. in Germany, in the B.A.O.R., if any? How much of it is based on N.A.A.F.I. prices and what the troops are considered on an average to spend on these goods? Surely the troops in Korea are entitled to an L.O.A. at least equivalent to that sum? If it be objected that it would be so small as not to be worth giving, I suggest that as, in equity, it would have to made retrospective, then at least the accumulation would surely provide a welcome little windfall.
I also want to ask my hon. Friend if he can clear up the question of the£5 bonus which was announced in the Press a few weeks ago but for some reason not announced in this House. It was not quite clear from some of the reports what was the nature of this bonus and whether it applied to all reservists or only to reserists serving in Korea. I have not said anything about special campaign pay or allowance or danger money because, on the whole, it is accepted by both sides of the House that to introduce that at this stage would probably be an undesirable reversal of what has become accepted policy in the Army since the new pay code was introduced after the war.
There is one other point not related to pay about which I want to ask my hon. Friend. What are the prospects for these men, as and when they are withdrawn from Korea, or relieved, of getting somewhat earlier home posting or home leave, after all they have been through, than they would otherwise have?
I hope sincerely that my hon. Friend can tell us today that L.O.A. is still being examined and that some way can be found of applying it to Korea. I presume,


finally, that any concession which my hon. Friend can make will apply, with appropriate variations, to the other services, although he answers only for the Army. I would mention particularly the case of 41 Independent Commando, Royal Marines, which was fighting far inland side by side with the Army during that heroic and ghastly retreat last winter.
I know that my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State are themselves sympathetic with our efforts to get something out of them. We know they are bound by all sorts of precedents and inhibited by difficulties with the Treasury. We appreciate the fact that they took the step of sending a special signal to the British Commander on the spot to ask him if he could put up a case for an L.O.A. for Korea. We only regret that he did not feel able to do so. No doubt he tried as hard as he could. I am asking today that my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State and their advisers shall try again and go on trying, till they get some more money for these troops.

1.16 p.m.

Brigadier Clarke: I rise chiefly to support nearly everything said by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). Since the Korean war started, both sides of the House have been fighting in an effort to get a fair deal for our soldiers there. I think both sides will agree that they have not so far had a square deal over the question of allowances. No one would expect that a fighting soldier should receive more than a soldier not fighting, but one should not expect to see him out of pocket or not being able to save as much as his fellow soldiers in Germany, Hong Kong or elsewhere.
There was the curious anomaly of a brigade being sent from Hong Kong to live in far less favourable conditions in fox holes and being told that there were no entertainments, no golf clubs, no night clubs, no cinemas and that therefore they were having a cheap life and did not need any money. It seems absolutely wrong to me to whisk a man out of Hong Kong, where he has a reasonable life, to risk his life on behalf of his country in Korea and then to tell him that, because living there is cheap, he does not need what he would have needed in Hong Kong and therefore will not get an overseas allowance.
We have pressed this on the Secretary of State for War for many months without any change. I have also pressed the point that these soldiers in Korea will go on leave in Japan where the cost of living has been forced up by the Americans, whose sergeants get the equivalent of what a British lieutenant-colonel receives. Naturally if they want a night out in Japan, they have to pay through the nose. A man needs a rest sooner or later and, if he can save up during the time he is fighting, surely no one in this country would begrudge him the good time he might have in Japan if he had any money to have a good time on.
Not only are allowances cut on leaving Hong Kong, but the soldiers have expenses which otherwise they would not have. Many have relatives in England, in my own constituency; I myself was in the Gloucester Regiment for 15 years and I have a large correspondence with officers and men fighting in Korea now. These soldiers have mothers in this country who wish to send them airmail letters and newspapers and parcels containing all the things a mother wants to send her boy. If she wants to send a cake to one of these lads living in a foxhole in Korea, it takes a large sum out of her pocket, and a soldier would probably like to send his mother some money so that she can send some of the luxuries which they are denied out there. What chance has he got on his basic rate of pay and no overseas allowances?
The whole thing must be looked at in a different way. If a war were started on a desert island no doubt the Treasury would say to the Secretary of State for War, "These chaps are not getting much on which to spend their money. They are living on a sandy waste, and therefore we are going to cut their pay." That is taking the thing to an absurd degree, but there is no limitation to which the Treasury will not descend if they think they can get money back from a soldier, sailor or airman. That is my experience.
One example comes to mind. When I first went to North Africa we got 300 francs to the pound. Then the Treasury tried to do a deal with the French about buying British coal. The French would not pay 300 francs to the pound, stating that the proper rate of exchange was 200 francs to the pound for the coal. The Treasury decided to let the franc drop to 200 to the pound, and a circu-


lar was sent to each officer telling him to impress on the soldiers that they were better off with 200 francs to the pound than they had been with 300.
I found it difficult to tell my men that they were better off after their pay had been cut by one-third. Certainly it never convinced me, because every time I went into a restaurant things cost me one-third more. It was rather like the argument used by some hon. Gentlemen opposite about devaluation, that it was not going to cost us anything at all. That sort of nonsense has gone on too long. If we devalue the pound it costs something more. If I pursue that subject, how ever. I shall be called to order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): On the Adjournment anything is in order so long as the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not suggest the introduction of legislation.

Brigadier Clarke: On this subject I am not likely to suggest that.
I have had many complaints about the cost of airmail letters, parcels and papers to the troops not only in Korea but in Cyprus and other places. The parents at home have got to pay, and if the troops are to get these amenities they have to recompense their mothers, who in many cases are poor people. Indeed, we are all poor people at home today. If the soldier wants these things, he must send money home. We must take that into consideration when assessing his cost of living.
We have heard the argument from the Secretary of State for War that the local commander has been told that if he can put up a case for a local overseas allowance, it would be granted. I should like to be told what are the conditions under which a local commander can put up this demand and who is to judge the merits of the case. If it were something like this, "We are not going to send you any N.A.A.F.I. and, therefore, as the chaps have not got anything on which to spend their money you cannot possibly say that they are having a more expensive time," then, of course, the commander cannot say it is more expensive for his troops. But he must take into consideration the fact that they have to send money home if they are going to get letters, parcels, papers and various comforts.
They may also want to buy a few presents to send home to their girl friends or presents for their parents. Those are all material things, and the soldier looks forward to the day when he can go to a Japanese leave centre when he is on leave and buy, say, a white elephant and send it home. He has always to remember, if he picks up a white elephant, ivory or otherwise that he does not want his parents to pay a large import duty on that white elephant when it arrives in England. I could go on for hours on this subject, but I want to hear what the Under-Secretary is going to say about the subject of our men in Korea.

1.25 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: In view of the limited time left for the debate, I promise to be very brief and to address only two questions to my hon. Friend. Like other hon. Members, I have received correspondence from some of these lads in Korea, and one letter tells me that the British soldier there is the only trooper not in receipt of some kind of allowance. Perhaps my hon. Friend would reassure me on that point, and tell me if it is true or not. My constituent points out that the only means of purchasing personal requirements is through N.A.A.F.I. and N.A.A.F.I. prices in Korea are on a par with or above the price in other parts of the country. Secondly, will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that equipment for the winter—we trust it may not be needed—is adequate to meet the requirements of these soldiers.

Mr. Awbery: Will the Minister deal particularly with the postage? I have quite a number of complaints about the postage on newspapers. Many of our young men live in towns where the weekly newspaper carries the news of the town, and they want to know what is happening. But when it comes to sending a newspaper to Korea, it is a pretty expensive job for a mother. Perhaps the Minister could give some consideration to the ordinary postage, the postage on parcels and the postage on newspapers and see whether something can be done either to reduce the price or to allow parents to send them free of charge.

1.27 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Wyatt): It is most appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) should have been the Member to raise this particular subject. I think he is the only one of us who has been to Korea and has talked about this problem to Ole soldiers there.
This is a problem which has concerned my right hon. Friend for some time past and, in fact, has concerned all of us at the War Office. We all have been anxious to see if anything could be done. Our failure to do anything about local overseas allowance or special campaign pay does not in any way derogate from our appreciation of the splendid achievements of our soldiers in Korea. The British soldier in Korea has proved himself to be the best trained and the most skilful fighter in the world today. He has earned the admiration of our allies and the respect of the enemy.
Exploits like those of the Gloucesters have illumined the pages of our military history and have amazed the whole world. No Englishman could fail to read with pride the remarkable article in the "New Yorker" of 26th May this year called "No one but the Gloucesters" by E. J. Kahn. It is a tribute to all those qualities of courage, calmness and endurance for which the British army is famous. But although the feat of the Gloucesters was magnificent, it was no different in kind from the sacrifices, bravery and superb military skill displayed by all the other British troops in Korea. Indeed, Mr. Kahn awards the same high praise to the other units of the 29th Brigade involved in the same action.
All these soldiers belong to a great army and all are prepared to do their duty in similar fashion. But in a great army there are traditions and precedents which cannot lightly be broken. We have our rules and we stick to them, and that is one of the reasons the discipline of the British Army is so good. That brings me straight up against the objections to the various proposals which have been made for giving more money to soldiers, sailors and airmen in the Korean campaign.
Let me take the local overseas allowance first. It is paid only where the general cost of living is higher than it is in the United Kingdom. It is not a

normal element of pay. It is an extra allowance paid because the general cost of living is higher locally than that of the United Kingdom. That is why it is paid in Hong Kong and in many other parts of the world. In Korea, the general cost of living is not as high as it is in the United Kingdom. It is true that some N.A.A.F.I. prices are individually higher than in this country, but some of the most important N.A.A.F.I. prices are far lower than in this country. Take a packet of 20 cigarettes for 11d., or 2 oz. of tobacco at prices ranging from 1s. 7d. to 3s. They represent an appreciable reduction on any prices which are paid today in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon suggested that there could be perhaps some balancing up between Germany and Korea. I am not sure that there could be a ready balancing up, even if N.A.A.F.I. were prepared to do that. The increased prices of N.A.A.F.I. goods in Korea are due to the very long journey that is involved. It has never been the practice of N.A.A.F.I. to subsidise one part of the world at the expense of another. I am not sure that one could make it very popular in Germany by saying that the prices of certain articles had to go up because we wanted to make them cheaper for soldiers in another part of the world.
The local overseas allowance is not merely a matter of comparing N.A.A.F.I. prices. The whole background has to be taken into consideration. There are simply not the facilities in Korea for spending money that there are in this country or in Hong Kong. That is one of the very reasons why service in Korea is particularly hard. There are no cinemas, or cafés, or entertainments of a Western kind. It is not merely a question of no golf clubs to join; there are not the entertainments to which the soldier is accustomed.

Mr. Driberg: Would my hon. Friend deal with the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke), about leave in Japan?

Mr. Wyatt: Perhaps when I conclude this passage I could say where leave in Japan comes in. I was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke), about the conditions made to General Robertson. We invited him to submit a claim for a local overseas allowance. The War Office merely


sent him the material that is sent to any commander in the world who makes a similar application. The question he had to answer was whether the local cost of living was higher than it is in the United Kingdom, and in order to help him to arrive at a conclusion he had a list of a range of items which might conceivably be necessary to be bought by any soldier or officer, wherever they may happen to be stationed. It is an aide mémoire. It is not a condition precedent, but is in order to assist the officer to arrive at his conclusion.
General Robertson was simply not able to make a case for a local overseas allowance, with the best will in the world. He wanted to, and we wanted him to, but it was not possible. The British soldier spends less in Korea than he does anywhere else and it would be going against the whole principle of the local overseas allowance to grant an allowance for that theatre.
So far as Japan is concerned, we have made arrangements for various leave camps and hotels for officers and other ranks where the prices are held down to a reasonably moderate level. It is true to say that there are very few soldiers who have been serving in Korea for any length of time who have not a credit. Some of them may have had a debit before they went to Korea, but they all have a credit now. I think that the hon. and gallant Member will agree with me.
It is perhaps irksome for the soldier to find that other soldiers are paid more, particularly if he happens to belong to the same group of Allies. The difference may appear unfair or unreasonable. I do not know that every soldier in Korea gets something in addition to his ordinary pay, but I think it is quite true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), says, that a good many of them do. Nevertheless, we cannot depart from our rule simply because other people are doing that. It would be to provide a precedent which would lead us into great difficulties in the future. We might find demand being made, with the argument: "You once gave a local oversea allowance in Korea, where it was not justified. Why do you not give it for somewhere else where it is also not justified?" We cannot do that.
I come to the point about newspapers. I am not quite clear what it is, because we have very favourable rates of air posting for almost every article that is sent to Korea by relations of soldiers serving there; but if someone wishes to send a bundle of newspapers by air to Korea, perhaps they are not taking the wisest course. We get an ample supply of newspapers out to the Service men there through our own channels quite speedily.

Mr. Awbery: I referred to local newspapers.

Mr. Wyatt: I cannot remember all the details now. I know that many answers have been given in this House showing that there are ways by which things can go in an open parcel at comparatively cheap rates.
I should like to deal with the difficult question of special campaign pay. The idea at first sight is a very attractive one, but I am afraid that it is one which we cannot accept. The implication is that a soldier is to be paid extra for risking his life when he is called upon to fight. Regrettable though it may be, to fight is the principal reason for which the Army exists. We cannot pay men extra because they are called upon to fulfil their function, that is, their principal function. It was never done in the last war, and to do it now would be to set a precedent for any future engagements or if we were, unfortunately, involved in another worldwide war.
It would also bring up very sharply the position of troops in Malaya. They, too, risk their lives. They might well feel, if special campaign pay were allowed in Korea, that they should get special campaign pay. It is sometimes suggested that Income Tax concessions should be made, but again this would be against the whole principle of the British Army pay code and the Services' pay code as a whole. Soldiers are paid on the assumption that they may be called upon to serve anywhere in the world and that they will pay Income Tax wherever they are and whatever the circumstances.
I am afraid that so far I have given a rather blank wall of negatives, but I should like to correct the impression that we have done nothing at all about the men in Korea. It would be wrong to assume that we have done nothing to


recognise the peculiar burden which is borne by them. In the first place—this answers my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon—every Reservist who has been called up because of the Korean emergency, wherever he has been posted, will be given a gratuity of£5. Of course, that does not apply exclusively to Reservists in Korea, but it means that any Reservist who has been sent to Korea will get that£5.
Secondly, we have arranged recently that every man who has served in the Korean campaign shall get, in addition to normal foreign service leave, one day's special leave for every month of service in Korea. I do not think that that is generally known as yet in this country. Thirdly, it has been laid down that no soldier shall serve for more than 18 months in Korea and that in most cases when he has completed that period of 18 months in Korea he will be brought home to the United Kingdom. It may not always be possible, where a whole unit has been taken out of the Korean theatre and has to complete a tour of overseas duty, but we hope that in the great majority of cases this will be possible.
Despite these concessions we at the War Office feel that the nature of the Korean war is such that we ought to continue our examination of the problem. Here is a full-scale war fought under conditions of appalling hardship, and, as well as sending serving Regular soldiers there, we have had to call back Reservists to the Colours and we have had to call upon National Service men. As I said earlier, all these have done a magnificent job and the War Office do not need to be reminded that they deserve everything that can be done for them.
The troops in Malaya are also doing a first-rate job, but I do not think anyone would suggest that the background against which they operate, the length of time they have to serve in the front line or the severity of the climate are such as to put them in the same category as the soldiers in Korea. One is a whole-time war; the other is in the nature of a police operation.
As I have said, the problem of giving some further recognition to British Service men of all three Services in Korea has been constantly examined from many angles with the object of seeing whether

anything can be done within the principles of the Services' pay code. The examination of this problem is continuing and it is possible that before the House reassembles we shall be able to announce something further which would not have the objections of either local overseas allowance or special campaign pay, but I do not make any promises.

Mr. Awbery: I should just like to raise the question of postage again. The postage on an ordinary newspaper to a soldier in Korea is 7½d. If a mother sends a letter, a newspaper and a parcel each week to her son in Korea, it will be very expensive for her. I agree that national newspapers are sent out there for the men to read, but the morale of a man is maintained not only by the national newspapers but by the news which he gets from his own home town. The weekly newspaper contains all the local information which he requires and he reads it and is satisfied. If the postage for an ordinary newspaper could be revised, it might help considerably.

Mr. Wyatt: I am not certain of the exact position, but I will make inquiries and write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Why should not all mails to Korea be free? Will my hon. Friend make representations in the right quarter for this to be done?

Brigadier Clarke: Constituents of mine are paying 5s. or 6s. to post newspapers to their sons or husbands in Korea and the Middle East. That is a very large sum of money. If it is not necessary perhaps the hon. Gentleman will arrange publicity to tell the men that they can get all the papers locally.
I am told that there is no guarantee that newspapers go by air even if air mail rates are paid. I have had proof of this and have written to the Postmaster-General about it. The Under-Secretary of State for War ought, on behalf of the troops, to urge upon those responsible that if air mail rates are paid, the postal packets should go by air mail or else people ought to be told that air mail cannot be used and they should be charged a lower rate. People are really being swindled if they pay air mail rates and the packages go by ordinary second class mail. I have evidence of that sort of thing.

Mr. Wyatt: The general rule is that if air mail rates are paid, the postal packets go by air, but I believe there have been one or two instances of their being held up at Hong Kong.

Mr. Driberg: Will my hon. Friend consider an alternative proposal, which is that, with the national newspapers which are sent out officially, he should include at any rate a selection of some of the principal provincial newspapers—from Birmingham, Portsmouth, Essex and so on?

Mr. Wyatt: That is an interesting point which was just beginning to occur to me. I will look into it to see if it is possible.

LAND SUBSIDENCE, CHESHIRE

1.45 p.m.

Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport (Knutsford): I want to draw the attention of the House to the dreadful devastation which has been and is being caused in Cheshire by subsidence of land due to brine pumping. I wish also to ask the Minister of Local Government and Planning and the Minister of Agriculture to interest themselves in this fearful problem and to aid, in every way they can, the local authorities to take action under the Brine Pumping (Compensation for Subsidence) Act, 1891.
The county of Cheshire, particularly that part of it which lies within the boundaries of my constituency, is seriously affected. There may be other cases elsewhere in England, but I propose to confine my remarks today to those areas which I have visited. The sight of the devastation is pitiful. There are heaps of rubble which used to be homes where happy families once lived. There are vast lakes where once cattle grazed and corn grew. The tops of tall trees appear above the water level of flooded wastes where once the land was fertile.
Only last year I walked across a 10-acre field at Rode Heath in my constituency. The stubble of harvested corn still remained, but the field had borne its last crop. In the short time which had elapsed since the gathering of the harvest the field had begun to slip. Great ridges ran across the full length of the field to show how it was falling in. The drainage system was destroyed. The field was no longer of use to man or beast.

poor farmer faces hard times in the future. These 10 acres are lost to him for ever and the balance of his farm has gone. Worst still, the subsidence is encroaching day by day and week by week across his land taking more and more of his livelihood from him. What compensation does he get? Absolutely nothing. He just waits for the end of his living. He can either sell now at a huge loss or go struggling on trying to avoid bankruptcy. The case which I have cited is not the only one; it is just one tragic example. I have spoken to people whose houses—the bricks and mortar representing a lifetime of saving and thrift—are now heaps of rubble.
One poor man—I have his letter here —whose house collapsed was fined 12s. 6d. for owning dangerous property due to subsidence and was ordered to remove the rubble which was once his home. This cost him£55. Was there ever such a gross injustice? Could there be a better example of adding insult to injury? He received no compensation whatsoever for having his home destroyed and was threatened with a heavy fine if he did not clear away at his own expense the devastation that remained.
That poor man still owes the money he borrowed to buy the home that has now been destroyed. I also know farmers whose land has gone so far that their dairy herds have sometimes had to be reduced by half because the land which once fed their cattle is now under water. These men and women are left without a penny compensation for the tragic losses which they have sustained.
The Brine Pumping (Compensation for Subsidence) Act, 1891, provides machinery for the formation of compensation districts where subsidence is caused by the pumping of brine and for the establishment of compensation boards for such districts. These boards form and maintain compensation funds by levying a maximum rate of 3d. per 1,000 gallons of brine pumped by each brine pumper during the preceding 12 months. I understand that the Act applies to any county but it is in Cheshire where it is most operated? This is not surprising, since some 2,500,000 tons of solid salt were taken out of the ground in Cheshire in each of the years, 1949


and 1950, making a total of five million tons.
But heavy subsidence has taken place outside these compensation districts. How are people affected as regards compensation inside the compensation districts? Compensation is paid provided that the person concerned makes a claim within six months of the damage starting. I understand however, that the trouble is this. In several cases, through ignorance of the law claims have not been made within six months, and, as a result, they get no compensation. These are poor people. They do not understand the law, and have no knowledge of the 1891 Act. They have never even heard of it; therefore, they get nothing.
Those who live outside the compensation districts get absolutely nothing, whether they apply or not. Brine pumping in one area can cause subsidence miles away from where the brine is being pumped, and there can be endless argument as to which brine pumper has caused the damage. Professor Edgar Morton, in his report on subsidence, has stated that subsidence due to the solution of salt beds tends to occur at ever increasing distances from the pumping centres.
What can these poor people do to get compensation for all they have lost? I asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning, on 30th January this year, when his local inquiry into the question of considering compensation for subsidence in Cheshire would take place. His reply was:
I cannot hold a local inquiry until I have received an application under the Brine Pumping (Compensation for Subsidence) Act, 1891.
I then asked him the following supplementary question:
Owing to the widespread anxiety which is being felt all over Cheshire on this question, could the Minister use his influence to have this inquiry held as soon as possible, particularly so that the question of retrospective compensation can be gone into?
His reply was:
I am only waiting for the local authorities to apply. Under this Act, either the local authorities or private property owners can apply, and until they apply I can do nothing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1951 Vol. 483, c. 706–7.]
I acted on this information and informed the Odd Rode Parish Council, who

immediately applied for a local inquiry. Their application was refused on the grounds that they were not a sanitary authority. The point is this: Who is to bear the cost of such an inquiry, the payment of expert witnesses, the employment of counsel, the weeks and months of consultation before a report can be drawn up? This procedure can be even more expensive when they came up against industry. These people again employ counsel. A company can afford to pay the highest in the land. Expense means little to them, as it either comes out of company fund or, I believe, can be set off against profits, in which case the costs are paid for indirectly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Minister said that private property owners could apply for an inquiry. That is quite true, but he omitted to add that only those can apply who own property of a minimum rateable value of£2,000. But the bulk of this damage has been done to the very poorest people; those who have saved all their lives and bought a small cottage and who have now lost everything. It applies also to farmers with smallholdings. Further, the application itself for those with property of a rateable value of£2,000 must be in the form of a memorial.
I understand that this is a very expensive legal business. Barristers have to be briefed, expert witnesses called, and a general expensive legal procedure has to be followed. What authority, what individual, can afford that these days, particularly when there is the fear that in the end he may lose the cause for which he is fighting, or the Government of the day may do nothing about it, even if the inquiry goes in his favour'?
The alternative, I understand, is a Private Bill. The cost of this, if opposition is not abnormal and the Bill is of average length, is about£2,000. But there may be expensive opposition from the companies concerned, in which case the cost may be much heavier.

Mr. Donnelly: Hear, hear.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I will get off that danger point. Can subsidence be prevented? There are, I understand, two methods of brine pumping—controlled brine pumping and wild


brine pumping. Imperial Chemical Industries have, I understand, spent a fortune in perfecting controlled brine pumping. They have found that, as a result of this method, subsidence has decreased each year until today, when hardly any subsidence occurs.
In brief, this method, I understand, fills a large cavity under the earth about the size of St. Paul's Cathedral, from which the salt has been removed, with saturated brine, the whole of this enormous cavity underneath the earth being held up by large pillars of salt. I hope that Imperial Chemical Industries will forgive me if I have given an incorrect description, but, right or wrong, the question is this: Will this system of controlled brine pumping stop subsidence for ever?
There are different views about this. Professor Edgar Morton, who is one of the greatest experts in the country on this subject, has given as his considered view that one day the salt pillars will give way, and that the resultant collapse will mean a disaster comparable only with that of an earthquake. Therefore, should there not be an immediate inquiry into this, and, pending a decision, should not these areas be fenced off as highly dangerous? Wild brine pumping, on the other hand, is, I understand, the cause of nearly all the subsidence now occurring. No attempt is made, apparently, to prevent subsidence. The salt is removed, there is no control, the damage is done, others are left to suffer, and good agricultural land is destroyed for ever.
It is always difficult to understand illness or disease until we see it for ourselves, unless someone we love is seriously ill or we ourselves are stricken. In just the same way no one can appreciate the suffering and damage that is being caused by subsidence until he sees it for himself. I have visited these stricken areas, and I have sent to both the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Minister of Agriculture albums of many photographs giving detailed examples of the destruction of land and homes.
I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House how they would feel if the homes they live in were suddenly to crack and start falling down, and they were then fined for owning dangerous property and ordered to clear away the rubble at their own expense, if they had nowhere to go and received not one penny piece of

compensation. What have these poor people done to deserve this? There is one hon. Member—the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper)—whose house in Knutsford is now starting to crack. I hope that the Minister will use his influence to institute a full inquiry into this matter.
Many questions are being asked in Cheshire, but the main ones are these. What compensation is to be paid in future for damage to land and property outside the compensation area, and who is going to pay it?

Mr. Nally (Bilston): Hear, hear. Who is going to pay?

Lieut. - Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Will compensation be retrospective, whether or not claims were made in time? Or are these unfortunate people, who have suffered so terribly and lost all through no fault of their own, to get nothing?
Can subsidence be stopped altogether? Is controlled brine pumping the answer? Is Professor Edgar Morton right in his opinion about the nightmare of possible future subsidence comparable to that of an earthquake? If so, will these danger areas be carefully marked and fenced off for all to know? If controlled brine pumping will stop subsidence for ever, are wild brine pumpers to switch to controlled brine pumping, or are they to continue as they are now, destroying land and property?
The final question which people are asking is. What action can the Government take to help them? What action will they take, and how soon?

Mr. Nally: Why the Government?

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I thank the Minister for listening so patiently and sympathetically. Goodness knows, this is no party matter. In 1937 and 1938, I understand, an inquiry was to have been held, but the war came and everything lapsed. Still nothing is being done, and the damage goes on at an ever-increasing scale and pace. There is no time to be lost. This subsidence is now breaking down the banks of the Trent and Mersey Canal and is heading straight for the Mill Mead housing estate. What experts are looking into this matter, and who is to pay for the damage if this canal and estate are destroyed?
Subsidence is taking place as far afield as Mobberley, Swettenham, Hulme War-field, Tabley and Bechton. Only the other day, a farmhouse kitchen collapsed without warning in Mobberley. That is where the Minister's predecessor wanted to build a new town.

Mr. Nally: He did not.

Lieut. - Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Cheshire is a lovely county, but across those rich and fertile fields is blowing the chill wind of fear. Whose home, whose property, is to be destroyed next? Unless something is done, and done soon, to prevent this appalling destruction, the beauty and fertility of a large part of our county will be destroyed and the face of Cheshire will be scarred for ever.

2.3 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen (Crewe): I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), and with a great deal of what he says I entirely agree. There are heart-breaking cases, but they are no new thing at all. Brine extraction has been going on in Cheshire for 150 and more years. The hon. and gallant Member says that he has visited this area. I remember visiting it when I was very small indeed, and that is quite a long time ago. That was in the days when Governments represented by the hon. and gallant Member had ample time and opportunity to deal with this matter, but they did not bother. The Act of 1891 is no real solution to the problem.
Representing, as I do, the Crewe constituency of Cheshire, I am often thought to be the representative of a railway town, and of only a railway town. My constituency is about 30 miles by 20 miles in extent, and the majority of it is agricultural land in urban and rural districts. Many of those urban and rural district councils have been affected by brine subsidence.
What surprises me this morning is that the hon. and gallant Member, who is very familiar with the district, has entirely failed to point out what the local authorities in the area have done and are doing now. The sanitary authorities are endeavouring to promote a Bill, the object of which will be to remedy a large number of these injustices, but I expect that, as

the hon. and gallant Member has said, it will meet with great resistance from Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, who are one of the chief extractors of the brine, and of other extractors. I have no doubt that the Bill could be promoted and passed in a very short time provided that the extractors would back it with reasonable compensation. At all events, a great amount of injustice could be remedied with their co-operation.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I very carefully abstained from making any party points or sneering at any particular section of the community. Will the hon. and learned Member please try to continue the debate in that manner?

Mr. Allen: I am not endeavouring to make party points. I am pointing out that this thing has gone on for 150 years and more, and that the hon. and gallant Member's tears are, I suspect, crocodile tears, and have been for a very long time.
In June of this year, the suggestion was made by the Cheshire County Council that a Bill should be promoted on behalf of the Cheshire local authorities who are interested in the compensation arrangements for the extraction of brine pumping. The Parliamentary Committee of the Cheshire County Council recommended that if they got the support of 75 per cent. of the local authorities, they would go ahead with the Bill. The object of the Bill is to set up a new comprehensive board and district for the area and to increase the amount of payments by the extracting companies.

Mr. Nally: Hear, hear.

Mr. Allen: In fact, a meeting was taking place in Crewe at 10.30 this morning, to which representatives of all local authorities had been invited, for the purpose of pledging the authorities by resolution to the support of this matter, which will very largely carry out the desires and wishes of the hon. and gallant Member when it is put into effect. It is strange that the hon. and gallant Member seems to be entirely ignorant of what is happening, because I am instructed that Mr. R. S. Redmond, who is the hon. and gallant Member's agent—whether his political or his estate agent I do not know—is attending the meeting and knows all about it.

Lieut. - Colonel Bromley-Davenport: indicated assent.

Mr. Allen: When the local authorities get together and agree, as I have no doubt they will do this morning, to promote the Bill, I hope the Government Departments concerned will do everything they can to assist the local authorities. I am sure that the Minister is willing to take up this matter and to assist the local authorities to remedy these injustices. I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Member did not mention the activities of the local authorities during his speech.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: My object was not to answer for what they were doing but to call the attention of the Minister to the devastation that is taking place.

Mr. Allen: I think that the local authorities were a little disturbed when they heard what the hon. and gallant Member proposed to do.

Mr. Nally: Mr. Nallyrose—

2.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planing (Mr. Lindgren): Perhaps I might now intervene. I am sorry to cut out my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally), but the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) has taken the Adjournment debate and I think that in the last few minutes of the time allotted to him he is entitled to a reply. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member on his excellent speech. Like myself, he has been in the House since 1945. It was the best speech I have heard him make, and I am sorry that more of his colleagues were not him.
I must emphasise the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen). Subsidence is a problem which has been in existence in the area for well over 250 years, and, to put it bluntly, this is really capitalism or private enterprise—whatever one likes to call it—"in the raw." The people who are exploiting the minerals of the earth take the minerals and make the profits. They have not troubled much about the effect of the extraction of the minerals for profit upon people who are completely innocent victims and who have suffered as the hon. and

gallant Member quite rightly said, quite serious damage to their property, and damage also to industrial property and to agricultural land.
As the hon. and gallant Member said, there are two types of pumping—wild brine pumping and controlled pumping. The wild brine pumping takes advantage of the natural streams which flow underground washing the tops of the beds of salt. They are tapped and the brine is pumped up and evaporated. The problem arising from that type of pumping is that, although the bore-hole may be in one area, subsidence may occur many miles away and no one can determine that any individual wild brine pumping extractor has caused that piece of damage. All that pumping, with one exception, is done by a large number of small firms.
The other method of pumping has been practised for 25 or 30 years, but only by I.C.I. They are practically the only people who have the "know-how" of this work. In view of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe said, I must make the point that all the evidence I have points to the fact that the controlled pumping of I.C.I, does not bear the risk of subsidence as does the wild brine pumping. The activities of I.C.I., all the evidence shows, cause the least risk of subsidence to anyone and I wish to acknowledge that I.C.I, engineers and technicians have been most co-operative. The firm is anxious to do everything it can to prevent any damage arising in the area. But, equally, I would not like to say that the claim of I.C.I. that controlled pumping will in fact prevent all subsidence in the future should be admitted. Time alone will prove.
I have no time to deal with the matter fully, much as I would like to, so I must turn to the question of compensation. The problem was recognised by legislation in 1891. In 1896 a Northwich area compensation board and compensation fund were set up and ever since there has been an opportunity for other local authorities in the area to get together and make application for a board to be set up to deal with this problem in their areas.
The first legislation was put forward by the old Local Government Board before the Ministry of Health was set up, and under that legislation the Minister cannot move until he is requested to do


so. If he is approached by local authorities, there has to be a local inquiry, a Provisional Order and a Bill in this House. I have made some slight inference that might be taken as meaning that the local authorities in the area may not have been as enthusiastic and active as they ought to have been.
That is true of years ago, but in fairness I ought to say that the local authorities in the area, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, have been quite active during the past few years. They have been holding local consultations and getting the facts, and achieving local agreement as far as they can, before coming to the Minister with a request for an inquiry. It might seem that they are delaying, but I do not think they are. They are doing the right thing and the more they can get local understanding and agreement the easier it will make the inquiry and other steps to be taken by the Minister. I can give the pledge that the Minister knows of the activities of the local authorities and that they have been in consultation with our regional officers.
From our point of view all the machinery is ready and, as soon as we get notification from the local authorities, we are prepared to go forward with the local inquiry and, if justified, the Provisional Order and other stages. The initiative rests with the folk in the area. We have information about the problem and we are most sympathetic with those affected by it.
Reference has been made to damage, but I should point out that, on the other hand, the industry plays a great part in our general national economy. In the salt extraction industry there are about 3,500 people employed, and in the chemical industries dependent upon it there are a further 17,500. Glass-making, the chemical industry and the paper-making industry are all dependent on this work and it plays a very important part in our national economy. But, important as it is, it ought not to be the means of innocent people suffering damage for which they get no compensation. We are prepared to rectify that and I think the industry will co-operate with us. As soon as we get a request from the local authorities, we shall be able to play our part.

DEFENCE PROGRAMME (SEASONAL WORKERS)

2.16 p.m.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: The subject I wish to ventilate is that of seasonal workers in the defence programme. This is not a subject which has blown up over-night, because for some months now hon. Members who form the all-party Resorts and Tourism Committee have been very much concerned about the reservoir of unemployed people in our constituencies all round our coasts and in certain inland areas during the winter months. I am very grateful that the Minister has found time to come and listen to our plea, and perhaps to give us some encouragement.
This afternoon, although we probably speak largely for our constituencies, we shall be raising the general problem, and I think I can speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that this is a question which affects the agricultural industry also. In our resorts, once the people have gone back home after their holidays—as they will be doing in about six weeks' time—many activities close down and, according to the figures I have for Yarmouth, the winter months are those of heaviest unemployment which lasts from November to April. The full seasonal employment only exists throughout two months of the year, July and August. That is mainly due to the fact that people come for the holiday season of those two months.
In Yarmouth we are fortunate in having another industry working full pressure until December, the herring industry; but after that, the plant closes down and there are big figures of unemployment in January and February. It is obvious that the peak figures since 1945 are nothing like as great as they were in the years before the last war, but it is interesting to note that on 11th December, 1950, the combined figure of men and women unemployed was 1,170. On 15th January this year the figure had risen to 1,410, by February it was beginning to fall and had reached 1,282. On 16th of last month, with the holiday season getting into its stride, the figure was 134 men and women.
Therefore, one gets a complete picture in those figures of the problem which we face. In the months when these people


are unemployed, it is my proposition that they could be found useful work in connection with the re-armament programme, especially when we are told by the Chancellor that throughout the whole country there is less than 1 per cent. of unemployment. When we are told that, we as Members of Parliament wonder whether we shall get the extra labour which will obviously be required once our defence programme gets into its stride in the middle of next year.
According to the Chancellor's figures, there is no reservoir left. As far as I can see, the only reserve of labour to he drawn on is that revealed by the figures I have quoted, which are typical of my own constituency and of all seaside resorts in the winter months. We are up against the difficulty that one does not usually start a factory, get production going in the winter months and then almost have to close down throughout the summer months. That is the perennial problem which we face, because of mounting overheads and so on. But I am sure that that is not an insuperable problem in these days. If we are to reach the conditions which we reached in the last war when we were multiplying production, in some cases uneconomically, in order to get arms and war materials for the use of the Services, we shall have to use this labour. I suggest that we should start to deal with this problem now.
I remember during the last war going from an R.A.F. station to a remote village in Leicestershire, where there was a dance in the village hall in connection with a "Wings for Victory" week. At midnight some people said that they had to leave and when we asked why, a former professional man said, "I have got to work." We said that we would walk to work with him and asked whether it was far away. He replied, "No, my work is in that building across the village street." The building was a garage, and the man was going on duty at midnight, for eight hours, to work on the production of small gadgets which were put in the mines which the Royal Navy used at sea.
That was a useful contribution to the war effort, and evidently it was regarded as an economic proposition in those days. I do not suggest that we are faced with such conditions yet, but no doubt we shall have such conditions as time goes by. I have looked into the possibility of work-

ing on these lines in my constituency, and I think that other hon. Members have considered the same question.
For instance, a fortnight ago, an enterprising young man came to Yarmouth and got premises from the corporation. He was greatly helped by a most enthusiastic and efficient planning officer, for whom I have heard praise from all sides, and he started producing jewellers' findings. This word "findings" was a new word to me. Apparently it means the tiny components which are used by jewellers. They are sent away in their thousands and assembled by other experts into jewellery which, no doubt, is being sold this moment across the river at the Festival.
The goods manufactured include little clasps which are used at the ends of necklaces, and others which are used on bangles and which have a slip-in type of movement. I put my proposition to this man. He replied, "I could employ seasonal labour in this small place. Given the backing of the Government I could employ up to as many as 300 people. I should not mind at all, during the peak months when they are engaged in the seaside industry and when they wanted to work on the front in the arcades, because I should have sufficient stock to tide me over until they could resume work. Overheads in modern electrically equipped factories are not very great."
There was another case of a gentleman who had some capital which he had got from another business. He got some premises on our quayside and he wanted to do his share in the defence programme. He wanted to now about this. He said, "I have enough capital to buy a certain number of machines. I have got an expert precision tool-maker as my manager. I have been in industry and in the Royal Air Force myself, and all I want to know is what the Government want. If they will tell me what they want, I will buy the presses and turn out the precision repetition work which obviously must be needed by all our Services."
Unfortunately, when we approached the Minister of Supply we did not get a very satisfactory answer. We were fobbed off with the statement that all the subcontracting was done by the contractors themselves and that the Ministry did not go into the matter. I suggest that those hon. Members who represent the seaside


resorts should approach the Minister and see that he takes some responsibility for this work. I put that suggestion forward today.
Another interesting offer I received was from an association of hotel keepers who said:
Members of this group of hoteliers have for some time been considering the question of finding out of season employment for our staffs and have decided that we shall proceed with plans to utilise some of our premises during the off season—October to May—in some form of light industry which can he adapted to our available premises.
They suggested that an approach should be made to me, and added:
This group alone employs about 70 persons during the season, and this labour is, in the main, lost to the national effort during seven to eight months each year. I would add here that most of the labour is female labour, largely by married women who do not report to the employment exchange during the off-season as they only contribute for industrial injuries benefit under the National Insurance Scheme.
They are not included in the figures which I have quoted.
This is a real effort by people who have the premises which are empty during the greater part of the year. They are willing to put in some modern precision electrical machines and turn out repetition goods. These are good and genuine offers, and the problem is quite simple. This pool of labour is our only reserve. I suggest to the Minister that he should approach the new Ministry of Materials, the Ministry of Supply and certainly the Service Ministries. By this time, our rearmament programme is getting into its stride. They should be able to say, "We need so many bits of pressed plastic work for our radar sets in each of the Services, and so many little contraptions for the new rifle."
The day before I visited the man in charge of the jewellery findings firm, I had been testing the new rifle. I suggested that this man might be able to turn out one component of the rifle in thousands. He said, "Of course, it can be done. Get me the order and I will turn them out wholesale." The only problem in connection with the new rifle is the question of production. If the Minister can get hold of the Service Ministries and put forward a proposition

of that kind at some round-table conference, we should welcome it.
This is probably the best time of the year in which to bring this problem forward. The holiday makers are streaming through our constituencies. They are enjoying themselves. There is plenty of sunshine. Our unemployment figures are down. The people are working at the turnstiles and in the arcades. But dark days are ahead for some of the men and women in these places. They will be unemployed soon.
Let us get a plan worked out during the Recess. Let us see if we can get some of this kind of work organised, so that by the time the last drifter leaves Yarmouth at the end of the herring season in December, the people will be able to go to the employment exchange to be told, "Yes. You will now be employed making parts for the new rifle. You are part of the national service."

2.29 p.m.

Mr. Carson: I listened with a great deal of interest to what was said by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Squadron Leader Kinghorn). I think that all hon. Members representing coastal resorts, where this problem is especially virulent, will be most grateful to him for the way in which he raised the question, and for the fact that he raised it at all.
It is admittedly an extremely difficult problem. It is one which I think most Governments have been rather keen to ignore because they found it so hard to solve. It is also a problem which many hon. Gentlemen opposite are glad to avoid, because they cannot give any definite, concrete answer to the problem. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, if one goes to a seaside resort now one finds that everything in the garden is lovely. One finds queues of motor cars and buses. One finds an entire atmosphere of prosperity and a feeling that all is well. That will go on until the end of August or September.
If one goes down after that, one finds a very dreary and dismal contrast to what is happening now. Winter in the seaside resorts is not a happy time, and it is not pleasant either for Members of Parliament who have to represent their constituencies during the winter. We


have to see a lot of quite ordinary, decent people who want what, after all, is what we all want—an all-the-year-round job at a reasonable wage. In most of the country now that is what they can get, but in seaside resorts they cannot, and they have to concentrate on what they can get in the summer months and in the peak period of the holiday season.
Unfortunately, many hon. Friends of mine and hon. Gentlemen opposite are both equally unenlightened upon this particular matter. I have heard them argue that, surely, our constituents can earn during the summer months about double the amount the ordinary person can earn, and asking why they cannot live on that during the winter. I am afraid that is the attitude of a great many of my hon. Friends and of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who do not really understand the problem.
Firstly, even if they could do this for six months of the year, if they are to live in luxury and idleness for the other six months, they would have to have a deal more money than if they were working, because they have to find some amusement to occupy their time, and that has to be paid for. Secondly, they do not have a six months' season; if they did, there would be far less grumbling. The weather, which His Majesty's Government have so far failed to control, seems to be an insuperable difficulty.
This is a problem which all Governments have failed to deal with, and which all have funked, and we on all sides would be most grateful if this Government will not do the same thing. If they want to retain some prestige, I suggest that they might get it in this problem by doing what they can to help. Nobody has suggested that it is possible to give a complete answer or that everything is "hunky dory." That will never be so, but a lot more could be done.
The figures themselves show how serious the position is. In my own constituency in the winter, we have about 3,000 unemployed, and Brighton has more—3,700—but these figures do show that there are men who still want jobs, who need jobs and still cannot get them. Their time is being wasted, so far as the country is concerned, and, what is more important, their own private lives are also being wasted.
I think we are all agreed on how the job must be done. It must be done by bringing the job to the man, and not by taking the man to the job. There are two reasons for that. One is that, owing to the acute housing shortage which prevails—and I am not trying to make a party point about this—it is impossible for a man to move about the country as he might wish to do. The second thing is the strong feeling of human environment. The ordinary person gets his roots in a certain place and does not want to leave. The problem can only be handled by using the existing factory space that is available or by new building.
As to using existing factory space, I want to say a word or two about my own constituency. We have a factory which is called Richborough, which is owned partly by Messrs. Dorman, Long and partly by the National Coal Board, but nobody feels inclined to use it to the full, because they cannot get more than a 10-year security of tenure on the buildings, and this does not encourage them to make repairs or improvements. Therefore, we cannot carry on with our developments. I hope that the Government will look into this particular point. On the second point, concerning new building, we would build factories if the materials were available. In my constituency in the winter, we have approximately 500 building labourers out of work—I have checked that figure with the employment exchange—and those could be employed in building if the materials were available.
We are pleading, and quite rightly, for the special case of a small minority of people in this country. It is not the overall problem of unemployment which we had to face before the war, but, because it is the problem of a minority, this does not make the case any the less urgent, and I am quite certain that His Majesty's Government would not feel that it was any the less urgent. I hope they will give the most serious consideration to this matter, and give us the best reply which they possibly can.

2.35 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: I shall not detain the House for long, because I spoke only some two months ago on the problem concerning my own constituency of Lowestoft.


I should like to reinforce what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Squadron Leader Kinghorn), and the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson), have said in this matter. It is a problem which has been worrying those of us who sit on the Holiday Resorts and Tourism Committee, and it is a perennial problem. It is the problem of the hard core of unemployment during the off-season period.
Lowestoft is favourably situated in that it has facilities for a great many light engineering works, but, even in those works at this time of the re-armament drive, there is unemployment and under-employment today. Not only is there unemployment, but there is a considerable amount of unemployment in those elements of industry which one would suppose would be fully employed during this period.
The difficulty has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, who referred to the fact that the Ministry of Supply are unable to allocate contracts to these small firms. All, or at least the majority, of them are sub-contractors, and it would be helpful if the Ministry could indicate to the main contractors that there are facilities in a good many of these places in which work could be carried out in improvised factories. The Admiralty could give the work, and the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade could direct new factories to be provided. We should be grateful if the Ministry of Supply would make an easier allocation of materials, particularly to East Anglia, which depends so largely on the agricultural industry.
There is one aspect of the problem which I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. Gentleman who is to reply. On inquiry, I find—and I think this is true of a good many seaside resorts—that a large number of the seasonal unemployed are disabled persons in the ordinary sense, and I should like the Minister to direct his attention to the provision of facilities for even domiciliary work, not necessarily in the old sense, because my hon. Friend has indicated that some hotels are willing to set up small domiciliary works in their own premises.
There is a great deal of feeling in East Anglia about the inadequacy of employment opportunities for disabled persons, and, as chairman of the Advisory Com-

mittee on the welfare of handicapped persons, I have a particular anxiety in this matter. I hope the Minister will be able to address himself to this problem and to see how far he can assimilate, in the defence programme, a larger number of disabled persons who are capable of doing light work.

2.38 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Frederick Lee): I assure the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson) that there is no desire on the part of the Government to avoid this issue; in fact, the figures which I could quote concerning holiday resorts, agricultural areas and so on, which have presented a very hard problem indeed, are now quite low. We are not complacent about it, but the figures are quite low in comparison with what they usually are at this period or any other period of the year. The hon. Gentleman was also concerned about the Government's failure to control the weather. I think it is improving, and let us hope that the improvement will continue in the next few years.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Squadron Leader Kinghorn) stated his case very fairly, and in reply to him I will make one or two points which must be reviewed in this context. First, one of the great problems is that we do not give industrial employers the impression that we want them to go into the holiday resorts with industrial premises. My hon. Friends would be the first to protest if that beauty which alone is the attraction of the holiday resorts were to be impaired by industrialisation there.
If we were to give industrialists the impression that we wanted them at all costs to utilise every pair of hands available in the off-season, it would be very hard indeed to ask them to clear out bag and baggage again when the holiday season reached its height. We are conscious of the necessity of preserving the beauty and attractiveness of holiday resorts of the type to which this debate relates. We consider that we would, on the whole, do a great disservice to the people of those localities if we encouraged that sort of thing.
Nor do I believe that putting too much emphasis on the placing of defence work in those areas would serve to ameliorate


the problem with which hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House are concerned. I must stress that both in seaside resorts, and indeed in development areas where there has been unemployment, we do not want employers to take defence contracts there for the very good reason that as soon as the emergency finishes the defence contracts will end and unemployment will again rear its head. Then all the work that had been done would not prevent unemployment.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: What about export orders? Could no efforts be directed towards increasing them?

Mr. Lee: Of course, we are doing just that. During the last few years great advances have been made in getting industry generally spread in a better and more efficient manner throughout the country as a whole. That is why we are able to say that there is less than 1 per cent. of the working population unemployed throughout the whole country. It would have been quite impossible at any other period of our industrial history, no matter how busy we were, to have achieved figures such as we now have achieved, merely because industry was not sited in the proper places.
The increase in employment that we have achieved, the process which hon. Members on both sides of the House have been quite rightly pressing—I welcome it—has been going on with considerable success, and it is our intention to carry on with that process. So far as the Ministry are concerned, we have asked our local employment committees all over the country to direct specific attention to the needs of areas such as those with which this debate is concerned.
I repeat that we do not wish to have a firm setting up inside a holiday resort unless it can guarantee that it only wishes to use the labour for the off-season. That is a very difficult process. In fact we have to watch, rather surreptitiously, to see where the parent company actually has its headquarters. We try to ensure—

Mr. Carson: Has there been any suggestion in the past few years that people have left a company in a seaside area because they wanted the higher wages obtainable elsewhere?

Mr. Lee: I cannot answer that off-hand. My impression is that we have had one or two complaints of that sort but we try to use premises in holiday resorts which are vacant during the off-season for firms the parent companies of which are sited at more than ordinary travelling distance from there. Otherwise, hon. Members would have deputations from the landladies during the height of the season complaining that those firms were taking away from them the very labour on which the welfare of the holiday resort depends.
Those are the sort of points we have to keep constantly in mind. The regional representatives of the production Departments are consulted by us as necessary, as they are the right kind of people to suggest the type of product more readily adaptable to off-season production. My hon. Friend was rather sceptical about whether those Departments were helping as much as they could. My impression, from contact with them, is that they are generally concerned about this matter and will do what they can to help.
So far as hon. Members and we are concerned, this is a humane problem, but its solution also would have another important value. We are now in a position of requiring every available pair of hands if we are to carry out the defence programme and maintain ordinary commercial production at the same time. We would consider it wrong not to lay special emphasis on districts where there is labour available to see, while acting consistently with what I have already said about our not wishing to cause too much heavy industrialisation in those areas which depend for their prosperity on the beauty of their surroundings, how it can be utilised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) referred to disabled men. We in this House know his great interest in this problem. We do what we can by means of the Remploy organisation to take care of disabled people. There was a time when Remploy expanded rather too rapidly. The result was that we had factories available whereas we had not the trainers ready to train disabled people.
It was necessary rather to restrict the development of Remploy until suitable people were available to train the disabled. My hon. Friend, having had


experience of this work, would be the first to agree that the aid and assistance which disabled people have received in this country since the war is one of the greatest accomplishments in our modern history. It is a great joy and pleasure to see men and women who in days gone by would have been consigned to the scrap-heap now healthy in mind and able to perform very fine jobs of work because of the organisation which Remploy controls and without which they would have had no such opportunity of getting work. In the Ministry itself we try to train disabled people in many ways, to take them into an environment in which their physical and indeed mental, ailments will be overcome, and bring them back into industry again.
I assure hon. Members in all parts of the House that we are very conscious of this problem. By the use of our local employment committees, we will continue to try to see what we can do in this great problem of seasonal employment. Local employment committees in the holiday resorts have served us very well indeed. We emphasise to them the special nature of their job, and the personnel of those committees live in the same environment as my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman opposite who have spoken. They know of this problem, they apply their minds to it and they have done a very fine job of work indeed.
Our job is to try to bring as much light industry of a seasonal character to the aid of these areas during the period when the holidaymakers and trippers so graphically described by my hon. Friend are sitting around their fires in some of those industrial areas where some of us live. We want to aid my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman opposite in the great job they have of representing properly the people in their areas while at the same time ensuring that our industrial workers are given the best facilities in those holiday resorts.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that his officials and those of the Ministers I have mentioned will get together during the Recess and review this problem?

Mr. Lee: We constantly have this matter under review. It is not a matter of getting together during the Recess or

at any other time. There are joint committees on which the Ministry of Labour are represented, with the production Departments to look into this matter regularly. I will bring any new points which have emerged from the debate to their notice, but I should be misleading the House were I to give the impression that this was any new process.

ROUNDHOUSE TRAFFIC ROUNDABOUT

2.50 p.m.

Mr. Crouch: I should like first of all to express my thanks to Mr. Speaker for selecting the subject of the Roundhouse roundabout as one of the matters to be debated today. I first drew the question of this roundabout to the attention of the House on 25th June in a series of questions which I put to the Minister, and I did so again on 2nd July. As the House is aware, we were told that there has been an expenditure of over£12,000 on this new roundabout and that a further expenditure of£1,000 is contemplated on lighting it. This is not just a matter of local interest. I understand that this is the focal point of all future roundabouts to be erected on trunk roads in this country, and it is for that reason that I sought to raise the matter in this House. It is just a coincidence that this prototype should be in my constituency.
As quite a number of hon. Members, some of them not in the House at the moment, are no doubt interested in the reason why this place is called Roundhouse, it may help if I briefly state what I have known of this spot during the greater part of my life. Originally there was a turnpike gate house there called Roundhouse. Something like 25 years ago this was pulled down to enable drivers of traffic coming from Wimborne or Bournemouth to see better and to have a better view of the crossroads. For a number of years there was an A.A. scout there during the busy hours of the day controlling the traffic. Some time just before the war, a roundabout was placed at that spot and I think it was of assistance to everyone. That roundabout was sufficiently large to enable all the wartime traffic to pass round it; it was the ordinary type of roundabout to which we are so accustomed.
Some time last year I noticed new works starting there. There was a great clearance of trees and banks and laying out of a great expanse of land which the Minister informed me in reply to a Question is no less than three acres in extent, the centrepiece alone being one acre, and something over£1,000 has been spent on laying out a landscape garden. I understand it is necessary to curtail all capital expenditure. Yet at a time when we are asked to be careful about spending fresh capital, the Minister has embarked upon these large works at Sturminster Marshall.
Part of the reason for this may be that when the Minister of Transport was originally appointed, his job was to see to the roads of the country and to take some responsibility for their upkeep, whereas today he is responsible to the House and to the country for all the internal transport of this country. That may be the reason for this expenditure taking place without the Minister having the amount of control he should have over these matters.
To give the House an idea of the size of this new roundabout, if we could put Piccadilly Circus inside the roundabout it would be lost. I suggest that the roundabout by the Lambeth Bridge has more traffic passing round it in three hours than passes round the Roundhouse roundabout in the course of a whole week. As far as Eros is concerned, it is the centre of Piccadilly Circus. I do not think it would be seen at all. As the House is aware, this was erected in memory of a former Member of this House, Sir Anthony Cooper, afterwards seventh Earl of Shaftesbury. He was, I think, one of the greatest friends the working class of this country have ever had.
This roundabout is so large that I have given the Minister an opportunity, from some photographs I have had taken, to see the difficulties which traffic experiences in travelling round it. It is so large that they get lost. I have noticed, in my local Press, that the superintendent of police is apologetic about the fact that he has to bring motorists before the bench for driving the wrong way round it. At week-ends I have seen a tar barrel placed at each of the four corners with a white arrow on it, directing motorists the right way round.
The next point I want to raise concerns the very great waste of land. This is very valuable agricultural land. If we are to have this size of roundabout all over the country, food production is bound to suffer. I suggest that enough land has been taken unnecessarily for this roundabout to graze and fatten something like three fat cattle during the course of the year. The centre alone would produce sufficient potatoes to feed 3,000 people for a week. I ask the Minister, how many roundabouts has he in the country, because if he can tell us that, then by multiplication, we can see how much the food position of the country will suffer if these roundabouts are introduced throughout the country.
My next point concerns development charges on laying out this landscape garden. I read in the Press recently that a local authority which had laid out some gardens for the Festival year have been presented with a bill from the Ministry of Local Government and Planning for development charges. Has the Minister to pay development charges for this new garden which he has laid out? How long was the work in progress? How many men were employed upon it? It seems to me that a great number of people were employed there for a considerable time and I should have thought they would have been much better employed in attending to their ordinary duties instead of embarking on this new roundabout.
I understand that this will be a dual roundabout, because I believe the Minister contemplates putting a dual highway along this road at some time in the future. My experience of driving along dual highways is that whenever we come to a roundabout we are quite rightly reduced to single file. If we are to have a dual roundabout, I want to put this question to the Minister: if two vehicles are running parallel down a dual highway and the one on the right hand side wishes to take the left hand road and the other wishes to take the right hand road, how will it be possible to avoid an accident? It would have been wiser, I suggest, to have retained the orthodox, single roundabout which we have at present.
I think one could quite easily drive around this roundabout at something like 30 or 40 miles an hour. The idea was originally that roundabouts were introduced to reduce the speed of the motorist


to avoid accidents. I hope that as a result of bringing this matter to the attention of the House this afternoon, the Minister will alter his plans. I do not suggest that he should spend an extravagant amount of money in making further alterations to the roundabout, but I hope he will not embark on laying out future roundabouts of this kind on any trunk roads in the country.

3.2 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: I shall not detain the House for more than a minute or two, but I must confess that I was rather surprised to hear the account which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch), has given of this remarkable roundabout in his constituency. The cost of£4,000 an acre appears to me to be very high indeed, and I want the Minister to tell us whether all this expenditure was duly authorised by his Department or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the capital expenditure programme. If so, was the work carried out within the permitted amount?
The sum of£1,000 which appears to have been spent in laying out the central island of one acre is fantastically high. What sort of garden is this? Does it have crazy paving, with rose beds and a fountain in the middle or, if not, what kind of layout is it that can cost this large sum? A private garden for a millionaire could not cost very much more.
Turning to the question of traffic, has the Minister a standard rule or guide in his Department which will show him what kind of improvement should be made at any point and what amount of traffic there is? Is a regular census taken at these points and, if so, what kind of system does he adopt? From what my hon. Friend has said it appears that the traffic, while not exactly non-existent, is certainly not as heavy as the expenditure would appear to suggest. Was any census taken and, if so, what did it show?
If, as my hon. Friend has said, this is to be a prototype for islands throughout the country, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have something to say about it before approval is given. On the general subject of traffic islands, we could do with the Minister's attention in the West Riding of Yorkshire,

but I hope he will not take land unnecessarily for this purpose. Was the Council for Road Safety consulted before the Minister made his final plan? It appears from what my hon. Friend has said that the roundabout is not working very well. At a week-end a row of tar barrels is placed across one highway and traffic is diverted in another direction, which indicates that there has been bad planning. In his reply, will the Minister answer those specific questions?

3.5 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): Perhaps I may first answer the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. W. J. Taylor), who suggested that the cost of the land was£4,000 an acre. As a matter of fact, the cost of land was£444. The total work, including the roundabout, eventually reached a figure of approximately£12,000.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: I am sorry; that was not the impression I was trying to give.

Mr. Barnes: I do not think it is necessary to pursue the point.
The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch), gave the history of this spot and mentioned that before the war it was customary for the A.A. to have a scout at this junction at the busy time of the day. Everyone appreciates, I think, that whenever the A.A. went to the expense of putting a permanent control scout at any junction, that indicated that the traffic was reasonably heavy and of such a character as to need some control and guidance. It would be wrong to assume that this roundabout represents the normal design. Nothing of the kind. The normal design is a roundabout 180 feet in diameter.
Turning to the question of a traffic census, the last census here was taken before the war and at that time 4,472 vehicles a day passed. Generally speaking, if there has not been an increase in traffic at most points in the country, there has certainly not been a decline and, on the whole, there has been an increase both in the rate and the dimensions and in the loads carried. This roundabout was commenced in January, 1949, which meant that negotiations and all the preliminary work in connection with it probably originated two years earlier. It was completed in October, 1949. The number of men em-


ployed was about 12. I do not think that represents any substantial difficulty. The tree planting was commenced in March, 1951, and finished in May, 1951, and in that connection six men were employed.
As far as I can see from the plans submitted to me—and I have not the knowledge of the locality which the hon. Member for Dorset, North obviously possesses—it is clear that it is an important junction of the east-west trunk road A.31 between Southampton and Exeter, which is crossed by the north-south road A.350 from Poole to Bristol, which comes into the trunk road at two distinct points; and here it appears to me, on the evidence submitted to me, that the alternative, to have made a satisfactory solution to this cross-road problem, would have meant that the two cross roads would have had to be re-aligned and reconstructed if we had had the normal type of roundabout coming in at right angles. If that had been the case I cannot see that there would have been any economy in land at all. Probably more land would have been required, and certainly if we had attempted to re-align the A.350 road to enable a smaller roundabout to be constructed, the cost of that alteration would have been more than the cost of the work involved here.
The hon. Member also referred to the proposal to spend another£1,000 on the lighting of this roundabout and junction. I would remind him that, as a trunk road is involved, the Minister carries a certain responsibility and in common law he has a liability to see that any obstruction in the highway—and a roundabout is an obstruction—is adequately lighted.
However, I do not deny at all that the position has materially altered from what it was a few years ago, and no one is more conscious than I am of the need to exercise the greatest possible economy in road expenditure and to see that it is directed always to producing the greatest benefits. In these circumstances I may have to reconsider the normal lighting scheme that we should adopt for proposals of this kind. Some form of lighting there will obviously have to be, but, as no commitments have been entered into in respect of that at the present moment, it is my intention to examine the problem to see if any economies can be obtained in that direction.

Mr. Crouch: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House if all roundabouts in the country are lit at the present time? My experience is that they are not.

Mr. Barnes: Oh, yes, if the responsibility is the Minister's, then, generally speaking, there are bollards and so on for the purpose of lighting.
The other point that the hon. Gentleman put to me was that this roundabout was so large that motorists got lost. I think he would agree that that is rather a political exaggeration in this case.

Mr. Crouch: If the right hon. Gentleman doubts my word, I will send him copies of the local newspaper containing reports of cases of motorists being brought before the local bench and of the police superintendent apologising.

Mr. Barnes: If the local motorists get lost, I do not think that that is necessarily the fault of this design. As a rule the signposting on roads of this description is sufficiently clear for any intelligent motorist to follow. That argument appears to me to be a very gross exaggeration.
If we look at some of the trunk roads and dual carriageways that were constructed between the wars, we find that the policy of construction that was followed between the wars caused, in my view, a considerable use of land that was not justified. We find wide reservations in the middle of dual carriageways, and we find wide reservations on either side. It is very apparent to me that in these islands, where land is so precious, the inroads upon the available land for a variety of purposes are getting proportionately very numerous, and I readily admit that there is a responsibility upon everyone connected with this problem to exercise the greatest possible economy in the use of land.
It is quite nice, of course, for anyone in a profession or a craft to aim at the ideal solution of any problem concerning his profession or craft, but it is clear from the experience we have had with many of these dual carriageways that the central reservations, which represent a very desirable amenity in the ordinary way, are beyond our capacity to maintain in the form in which they should be if they are to add to the beauty of the designs of the roads.
That being the case, the standards of road construction between 1918 and 1939 are now under review, and I think that in designing roads in the future we shall have certainly to examine in every possible way how we can get the needs of traffic harmonised with and related to the need for the conservation of land in every possible way. I do not at all resent issues of this description being raised, because I join with the hon. Gentleman in recognising that economy in every direction must be obtained.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to give a very full reply to the debate. I wonder, therefore, if he will reply to the question I put to him on the subject of expenditure—whether the authorised expenditure has been exceeded or not?

Mr. Barnes: Not in this case. At the time when it was originally designed it was not governed by the same rigid procedure that has applied since the restrictions and economies necessary to control capital expenditure.

Mr. Taylor: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT, HORNCHURCH

3.15 p.m.

Mr. Bing (Hornchurch): The subject I am raising, that of public transport in Hornchurch, may appear at first sight to have only local interest, but what happens in Hornchurch is merely an example of the problems which every community on the outskirts of a great town has to face today. Indeed, if any further justification were needed for the nationalisation of road and rail transport it could be found in the chaos and confusion that marked Greater London transport before the war, and if today transport in Hornchurch is far from perfect it is in a large measure due to the unplanned and conflicting transport patterns which were the result of competing private enterprise.
Just to give one example, before the war the principal traffic artery in my constituency, the District line from Upminster, was owned by the L.M.S.; trains were run over it not only by the L.M.S. but by the London Passenger Transport Board; while the L.M.S. steam

trains terminated at Fenchurch Street which was the property of the L.N.E.R. From this sort of dispersal of ownership and management we have at last escaped, and the need now is for careful and detailed planning for the co-ordination of transport, not on the old basis of whether or not this particular section gave or did not give a dividend to the shareholders, but upon the new, nationalisation basis of how we can best carry the maximum number of people in the greatest comfort.
In the Greater London Plan Professor Abercrombie made a number of suggestions for dealing with traffic in Greater London, and after nationalisation the British Transport Commission set up a Working Party. Studying Hornchurch traffic, I have had the chance of looking at both these plans. I should like to pay tribute to the great help given me by the Eastern Region and the London Transport Executive, and also within my own constituency by various ratepayers' associations, the Upminster Ratepayers' Association and Town Ward Ratepayers' Association, and above all by the Horn-church divisional Labour Party. However, even with all this help and assistance, I still am unable to secure what must be the basis of any constituency plan—the total number of people who leave Hornchurch each working day.
Last year, for example, from the four District Line stations in my constituency some 5,600,000 tickets were issued, and it is estimated that some 3,500,000 outward journeys were made by season ticket holders over the same period. That gives a total of well over 9 million journeys either by steam train to Fenchurch Street or by the District Line. While, no doubt, steam trains do carry a considerable number of passengers daily, it is at least significant that the largest number of journeys, nearly 3 million, were made from Elm Park station, where no steam trains go. Working from that rough calculation, and allowing for Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays, it would appear that some 30,000 of my constituents travel to work each day on this one line alone from those four stations.
From a count made on 8th November, 1950, by London Transport, we can get the actual figures on the other lines. Some 3,300 people joined the Shenfield line at Harold Wood, some 5,100 at Gidea Park, and some 12,500 at Romford.


Harold Wood is the only one in the Hornchurch urban district, and probably at least half of the travellers come from the Harold Hill L.C.C. housing estate which is in Romford. Nevertheless, out of a total of some 21,000 people travelling from these three stations on this particular day, probably some 10,000 came from Hornchurch. Finally, on the same day from Rainham some 1,200 constituents joined the Fenchurch-Tilbury-Southend line. If one makes allowance for the Green Line service and for the bus services that leave the constituency, probably some 50,000 people leave Hornchurch every working day.
The census has shown that the population of Hornchurch is around 104,000. Therefore, if my calculations are correct, almost one out of every two people in Hornchurch leaves it every working day. In short, that means that, next to housing, travel is the most important problem in the daily lives of my constituents; any change in fares must affect their household budgets; any delays on the line or bus services must affect the hours of work, and consequently their productivity.
Probably the greatest single move to relieve traffic congestion in Eastern London has been the electrification of the old L.N.E.R. line as far as Shenfield. My right hon. Friend will remember that when he was speaking on the Transport Bill, he gave some figures of the increase in traffic which has resulted from electrification, and I have taken the liberty of getting those figures up to date. The line is today, thanks to electrification, enjoying 70 per cent. increased passenger receipts, and the number of passenger journeys—which is perhaps the better test—has increased by 85 per cent.
I mention this because it is the type of capital expenditure involved in the building of this line which has been most attacked by Conservative economic planners. For example, Mr. Roy Harrod—whose book "Are These Hardships Really Necessary" is, I understand, the Conservative economic bible—had this to say about a scheme which has done more than anything else to relieve the intolerable transport conditions of the ordinary person in Eastern London:
What could be more grotesque in the existing situation than to proceed with the scheme for electrifying the L.N.E.R. line to Southend. It is said that the immediate target has been reduced to electrification as far as Shenfield.

Then he describes a horrible personal experience which he had:
I have myself seen on several occasions recently gangs of men at work on the line. Overhead girders are used. A scheme of this sort is bound to absorb a vast mass of material of divers kinds as well as constructional labour.

Sir Edward Boyle: The hon. Gentleman is, quite unwittingly I think, giving a slightly unfair impression. One of the points upon which hon. Members on this side of the House have fairly consistently disagreed with the neo-Manchester school of economists, of which Mr. Harrod is a member, was their belief that cuts in capital expenditure constituted, in general, the way to solve the problem of the dollar gap. We disagreed with that.

Mr. Bing: If we had had the good fortune to have the hon. Gentleman in the House in the last Parliament—a loss which we all regret—he would have heard Mr. Harrod's works quoted on many occasions from the Opposition Front Bench as the correct economic policy to be pursued. If I may, I will resume my main speech, because there are a lot of points that I want to cover in the rather limited time at my disposal, if I am to leave time for other important subjects to be discussed.
I was about to say that I mention this point because I think it shows the public the sort of sympathy they would get in their traffic problems from the Conservatives if we had a Conservative Government in power. Needless to say, as in the case of many Conservative economists, Mr. Harrod has got his facts all wrong. The Shenfield system is far less extravagant in the use of steel and other materials than any other method of construction, and I think it could be shown that the time saved through an efficient transport system would soon, in increased production, pay for the cost of the material used.
From a constituency point of view, unfortunately the Shenfield Line is far less important to Hornchurch than is the District Railway and the steam trains to Fenchurch Street. While the Government have gone on with the Shenfield scheme, they have hung back from essential improvements to the District Line. The principal problems involved are quite simple. At Barking, all goods


traffic to the docks has to cross over the main line. It takes a goods train five minutes to be clear of the main track, and, as the Railway Working Party pointed out, these delays
upset the regularity of passenger services over the whole of the District system to places as far afield as Wimbledon, Richmond, Hounslow and Ealing.
In other words, for every additional goods train of exports we manage to send to the London Docks, people over a vast area are that much longer in getting to work and there is that much production lost.
It is true that goods trains are kept from crossing the main line at the peak period, but this delay in goods traffic equally results in a loss of production. The solution is a fly-over at Barking, and it is no use my right hon. Friend saying that we cannot afford the capital expenditure. What we lose by the capital expenditure we gain by increased production and by the saving of time in passenger and goods delays. Secondly, the absence of adequate goods sidings at present results in goods traffic being actually shunted on the lines in the neighbourhood of Plaistow and Barking, and it is essential that the new marshalling yard at Ripple Lane should be constructed as soon as possible.
Finally, the signalling system beyond Barking needs improvement before more trains can go through to Hornchurch. For example, in the morning peak period, from 6.45 a.m. to 9 a.m., 66 trains run from Barking to London, but only 25 of them originate from Upminster. In the evening peak period, of the 59 trains which leave London only 31 get through to Upminster.
But this reconstruction is a long-term solution. In the meanwhile, the problem is to get as many people as possible from the Upminster and Hornchurch areas to travel on the Shenfield Line, which is more capable of expansion than is the District Line in the present circumstances. Something can be done by lengthening the District trains, and by trying to see that the Fenchurch Street steam trains run as punctually as possible.
I should like to congratulate the Eastern Region on the great improvement they have made in that direction in recent months. In January, only 56 per cent. of trains into Fenchurch Street ran to time; this June 86 per cent. did; but I

should like my right hon. Friend to consider whether more use cannot be made of the single-track line from Upminster to Romford. At present very few people use this line. On the count on 8th November, 1950, only 912 people made the journey on the line from Upminster to Romford; and even some of these appear to have been discouraged, because only 840 made the return journey from Romford to Upminster. One train carried no passengers at all, and a number of others had fewer than 10. This may be because the time-table on this line seems still, in the old-fashioned way, to be designed to fit in with the Fenchurch Street steam trains rather than the electric trains on the Liverpool Street line.
Quite clearly, there must be some policy decision soon in regard to this line. The Railway Working Party suggested that it should be doubled and electrified, and, if I might respectfully suggest it, I think that is by far the best solution. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will say that with the prior needs of defence the capital expenditure cannot be found. But even looking at the matter from the point of view of the narrowest defence issue, I think it is quite obvious that in the vital Tilbury Port area a second effective railway line of communication is essential.
If, on the other hand, my right hon. Friend decides against immediate electrification, then other policy decisions are equally important. He must tackle the problem of the inter-availability of tickets. At Upminster the number of journeys made by season ticket holders is more than the normal passenger bookings. If, therefore, the present policy of cancelling the trains on the Upminister-Romford line is continued, the season ticket holder must be given season ticket facilities on the buses between Upminister and Romford if there is to be any chance of diverting him on to the Shenfield Line. When there are breakdowns, and unfortunately they sometimes occur, these facilities are permissible and I cannot see why they cannot be permissible when the train does not break down but is cancelled.
Finally, there remains the third line in my constituency, the Fenchurch Street-Dagenham Dock-Rainham-Shoeburyness. Just under 3,000 people either alight from or join the train each day at Rainham Station. But this is a small proportion


of the population living locally, and it is obvious that the failure to electrify this line means that most of the traffic goes by bus or Green Line. Even so, this comparatively small number of people leaving the station produces a problem of dispersal. It has been analysed by the Rainham Labour Party and provides an interesting commentary on the transport problems of the area.
Historically the centre of Rainham is the clock tower, and here is the bus interchange point. However, the centre of the population is now half a mile away to the east at Chandlers Corner. This area is served by only one bus at an interval of 30 minutes and the inhabitants of the principal street, Upminster Road, which stretches a mile and a half east, are served only by this No. 87 bus which has to cater for all those who arrive by train, country bus or Green Line bus.
The timing of this 87 bus is dictated, not by the needs of those congregated at the Clock Tower, but by the scheduling of its service from Barking. As a consequence, from 5 p.m. onwards of the 20 buses arriving there 10 leave from one to five minutes before a Green Line bus or train arrives, six leave in a minute or two of the advertised times of arrivals, and only four out of the 20 are certain of connection. London Transport see the problem but point out that to increase the service would mean further buses, and this raises the question of Government restriction of capital expenditure. Does my right hon. Friend think that the frustration and delays resulting from these factors really justifies the limiting of this type of capital expenditure?
So much for facilities. Let me say now a word about costs. I have never understood the. argument which holds that it is perfectly right for the Government to control rents, whatever hardship this may impose on the landlord, and yet will not control surburban fares because this might involve some additional hardship on surtax payers. If families are forced, by the present system of allocating houses, to live at a distance from their work, then fares are really part of their rent, and if rent can be artificially stabilised, I cannot see what is the case against stabilising fares.
Quite apart from this aspect of the problem, there is one other general consideration. Two of the principal roads

in my constituency are former turnpike roads. They both went bankrupt, whereupon the State assumed full liability for their maintenance. The main cost of transport in the Hornchurch area depends upon the maintenance of the various permanent ways of the railways. If the State can maintain the former turnpike roads, why cannot it maintain the permanent way of the railways? Leaving aside this question, which is perhaps rather too broad to discuss on this Adjournment debate, there is a further point in regard to fares that we commented on strongly by the Railway Working Party. They said:
Disparity in charges between the main line railways and London Transport at present causes artificial distributions of the traffic and prevents an economical utilisation of transport facilities.
That is particularly true of Hornchurch. The improvement in the electric services has to a large extent reduced the usefulness of the Green Line service for long distance. It would, however, be extremely valuable for shorter distances if only there was a lower minimum fare. I will quote one letter which I have received:
I and many others have to travel long distances to get to work—as far as Surrey Docks, Millwall, Blackwall, Rotherhithe, Tilbury, etc., being a ships' plater by trade. The fares hit me if I dare to travel by Green Line, the most expeditious travel on the road in the early morning. We have no 2d. all the way from the above address. To East Ham it means three changes for me at cheap workman's rate, 5½d. By Green Line, 10d., net saving 4½d. but three bus queues to line up for.
To take another example, no bus runs along the main road from Hornchurch to Dagenham and travellers must crowd on to the District Line. If the Green Line minimum fare was reduced this would do something to reduce the pressure on the District Line, and inter-availability of season tickets between bus and rail would of course also help.
But by far the worst example of this failure to plan traffic by a co-ordinated policy of charges is shown in the treatment of early morning fares. This is a matter on which I have had considerable correspondence with Lord Hurcomb and I have not been particularly impressed by his answers. On 27th July he wrote me as follows:
In the first place I should explain the reasons for two different systems in force at London Transport and the Railway Executive stations respectively. On London Transport


Lines these tickets are available on trains leaving the departure station before 7.30 a.m. Whereas on the main line suburban service the rule is that the passenger must meet the destination station not later that 8 a.m.… The two different principles are, I am afraid, inevitable.…
Why on earth should this be? On the Upminster Line the Eastern Region issue early morning tickets up to 7.30 a.m. Why cannot they do the same on the Shenfield Line? If the passenger is travelling to Liverpool Street, of course, the problem does not arise, because he can then travel by a train leaving Harold Wood after 7.30 a.m. and still be at Liverpool Street at 8 a.m. But supposing he wishes to change on to the London Transport system at Stratford, he then must leave by a time which brings him to Stratford before 7.30.
Consequently, early morning tickets for interchange passengers cease being issued at Harold Wood shortly after 7 o'clock in the morning while they are still issued up to 7.30 on the District Line. Passengers, therefore, are persuaded to join the District Line, which is already overcrowded, and not to go on to the Eastern Region line, which could far more easily accommodate them. Alternatively, passengers are persuaded to get out at Liverpool Street and rebook, all of which occupies more labour and adds to the terminal traffic congestion. The problem is all the more serious because the office workers, who used before the war to work in the City, are now, owing to war-time destruction of City offices, scattered over the West End.
Finally, let me add a few words about travel within the constituency. Horn-church is a growing area. If we are to develop a sense of community and a real corporative existence, its various parts must be linked by good public transport. If London Transport have a monopoly, they have also a duty to see that the community have the services they deserve.
At present we lack a north—south link between Harold Wood and Hornchurch station. For years London Transport have been unwilling to provide this service and yet when a private operator offered to provide it they announced that they would oppose his being given a licence before the Transport Commission.
This service has at last been promised for this winter, but it is essential that it

should be provided. At present, to travel from Harold Wood to Cranham, a distance of three miles south, the quickest and most effective method is to take a train journey of three miles west to Rom-ford, in order to catch a bus going three miles east to Upminster, changing there on to another bus for Cranham.

Mr. McAdden: Integration.

Mr. Bing: Because London Transport feel it would not pay they have declined to run a bus service between Upminster and Brentwood. Yet apart from cost, there is every reason in the public interest why such a service should be run. Lastly, there is a great need for energetic planning of services to the large estates built since the war by the council. Two examples are Hacton Farm and the Dover Farm Estates.
One final word. The Hornchurch Urban District Council, in accordance with usual Tory policy, have refused to do anything to celebrate the Festival of Britain. I ask my right hon. Friend to repair this omission. Let him give Horn-church a permanent memorial of the Festival year, a model transport scheme worthy of the constituency.

3.38 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): If I intervene at this stage it is not that I wish to deprive anyone of the opportunity of making any further additions to the statement to which I have listened, but I recognise that there is another subject coming on in which I think many hon. Members are interested and I should not like to encroach on that time.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has overwhelmed me with a list of transport disabilities from which his constituents are suffering, but unlike the previous subject that we were discussing I happen to be familiar with the district concerned though it is impossible for me to deal with all the points in detail except to give my hon. Friend an assurance that, generally speaking, I know of these difficulties and that substantial steps have already been taken, as he has admitted. I have every desire to facilitate the authorities to meet the major part of his problems.
This presents a suitable occasion to indicate how eventually transport shoulders the responsibility for defects in


many other activities of a community. Between the wars, from 1918 to 1939, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, there was a very substantial movement of industry into this area, and there was an enormous development of the housing estates until within a few years what was a large agricultural, marketing area became a thickly-populated district. That development took place without any regard for the transport facilities existing, which, both road and rail, had been provided for a population very much smaller. When those enormous developments took place, the transport facilities were unable to meet them. Then came the war, and transport was not able to develop at all during the war period.
Areas of this description have suffered from lack of transport facilities. My hon. and learned Friend gladly acknowledged, and tempered his criticism and appeals with generous references to them from time to time, the valuable services which the electrification of the Liverpool-street—Shenfield line has brought about in the area. I want to take the opportunity of emphasising the lesson that it conveys.
The main roads that come from the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend are very heavily trafficked and it is desirable that as far as possible the traffic should be taken off the roads and on to the railways. In another direction a great deal of criticism has been levelled against the London Charges Scheme. One of the purposes of the previous London Charges Scheme was to consider the very question mentioned, that differential rates within a given urban area lead to an artificial distribution of traffic. The figures show that there has been a 70 per cent. increase in receipts on that line and a 85 per cent. increase in passenger journeys, a most desirable economic process in the relative fields of rail and road transport. That was only possible because that London Charges Scheme aimed to bring about more or less the same standard rate for travel on all forms of London transport, including the main and suburban lines in London.
The next point I want to emphasise is that, despite all the capital restriction on railway development, the Commission have been proceeding with the preparatory work in connection with the electrification of the Fenchurch-street—Southend line.

Mr. McAdden: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear that the demand for the electrification of that line has been supported by all parties and is not a political issue. The work was put in progress even before the hon. and learned Member raised this matter.

Mr. Barnes: Everybody quite apart from his politics wants reasonable transport facilities. The preparatory work is going ahead. Of course, it is a very major operation to electrify a line like that. The marshalling yards at Ripple-lane, the improved lay-out and the signalling arrangements, are all part of that work. Whether it will eventually be completed I cannot say. I sincerely hope it will. What happens is that when the railway administration visualise a complete change-over, it means not only a change-over in motive power but electric coaches and electric locomotives. In those circumstances it is not wise to spend money on modernising the steam system if we are to change over to the electric system, and there is a steady deterioration of stock. The standards on this line today are nothing like they used to be a few years ago. I join with my hon. Friends in the hope that eventually this will be completed, and I am sure it will have the same desirable results as the Shenfield—Liverpoolstreet electrification.

EQUAL PAY

3.45 p.m.

Miss Irene Ward: I do not propose this afternoon to argue the merits of equal pay. The principle has been accepted by all the political parties in the country. I prefer to confine myself to dealing with the Chancellor's speech when he rejected the claim for equal pay put forward by the Civil Service. His statement on that matter was both unfair and inaccurate and has caused great resentment and bitterness among the Civil Service, the local government service and. I notice from Press reports, the T.U.C. itself.
I do not propose to discuss his statement from the point of view of the gradual scheme which has been put forward to the Chancellor by the Civil Service. I prefer to deal with the implications of the full scheme on the estimated cost of£25 million a year, because I believe the case


can stand on that basis and it does not complicate the issue if I deal with it in that way. I shall deal with the Chancellor's speech from the point of view of the so-called inflationary tendencies, from the point of view of repercussions and from the point of view of the effect on the married community. That more or less covers the reasons for the Chancellor's rejection of the scheme.
I begin with the first point relating to the cost and the inflationary tendencies. I observe that between 1946 and 1950 wages in this country have risen by£1,790 million per annum. I also observe that in the first six months of this year the weekly aggregate increase amounts to£2,700,000, running at an annual rate of£1,350 million.

Sir Arthur Salter (Ormskirk): For the sake of the accuracy of the record, I believe my hon. Friend gave as the total wages earned in a year what was really the increase in the wages. The figure was much too small for the actual wages.

Miss Ward: I am sorry if I gave that impression to my right hon. Friend. I certainly meant the wage increase. If one looks at these very considerable figures the sum of£25 million is a very small amount to put into operation a principle which has been accepted as just and fair.
I want to come to my next point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, of course, really based his claim on evidence that had been submitted to the Royal Commission. He made very effective use of one particular quotation. On this question of higher cost, I want to quote the evidence of the Treasury to the Royal Commission. These are not my own words, but the evidence given to the Royal Commission. Under the heading "The Civil Service," paragraph 420, it is stated:
…as in other fields, equal pay would entail as an economic consequence, a transfer of purchasing power, in this case from the general body of taxpayers to the special class of women civil servants. The amounts so transferred would be, of course, not the gross cost of equal pay but that cost less the fraction of it recoverable by taxation from the women civil servants themselves.
In the Budget, the Chancellor—and everyone was glad of it—made a contribution in relief of taxation to married

families amounting to£32 million. If we can afford to put£32 million on to the national expenditure for a certain section of the community, then I believe that it ought to be possible to accept the implementation of the principle on which we have all taken a stand. That is all that I have to say with regard to the cost of the implementation of equal pay.
Now I return to the repercussions, with which the Chancellor made great play. He allowed us to believe that if the Civil Service claim alone was met, it would have a very great effect over a very wide field. I came to the conclusion, after listening to the Chancellor, that he had not either read the evidence or examined the case as it ought to have been examined by a responsible Chancellor of the Exchequer. I give, again, the evidence which the Treasury, in the first instance, gave to the Royal Commission. That was what they said in Appendix II paragraph 18:
The Treasury believe the Commission will find that outside the public services men and women are normally segregated in employment, and 'equal work' is not common. Therefore, a decision that equal pay must be given for equal work would be unlikely to have much effect on wages outside the public services, and might indeed well have the effect of increasing the segregation of men and women, so that wages could find their market level unhampered by this artificial principle. The equal pay received by men and women in the public services would then be an anomaly in the general wages system, and could not provide justification for a substantial extension of the family allowance scheme.
Curiously enough, I find that employers, who certainly have not been forthcoming in supporting the principle of equal pay, gave this very interesting piece of evidence in paragraph 142:
As the Trades Union Congress have put it in evidence, 'apart from the special circumstances which arise in war-time, there has been a fairly, clear and well-established demarcation between men's and women's work throughout the greater part of manufacturing industry.' The British Employers' Confederation expressed the same view when they said: 'the field in which men and women are employed in precisely the same work and under identical conditions is very limited.'
Therefore it is fair to argue that if one looks at the evidence which was given before the Royal Commission, equal pay in the public services was regarded as being of assistance, rather than a hindrance, to industry. I am completely at a loss to understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have developed his argument as he did.
There is one other point I want to make. When the pressure of the British Medical Association on the Government in relation to doctors had its effect on the Government, and inside the Civil Service the medical profession attained equal pay as between men and women, the field of equality within the Civil Service was not extended. In fact, the granting of equal pay to the doctors had little effect, for, to take a comparable service—that of the legal profession—the women. employed on legal work inside the Civil Service still get the lower rate. Therefore, it was quite inaccurate to argue that necessarily wide repercussions would follow from the acceptance of the principle.
My third point, which, I agree, is very important, is the question of the Chancellor's statement on the effect which the granting of equal pay would have upon the married community. The Chancellor made it very clear that this was a major point, and, of course, he was quite right. This is what he said:
The majority of men employees have families dependent upon them; the majority of women employees have not. The introduction of equal pay would mean that the standard of living of a married man with a wife and children to support would compare unfavourably with that of an unmarried woman with no dependants. This would give rise to demands for much larger family allowances, either by an extension of the national scheme or through special arrangements in particular occupations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June. 1951; Vol. 489, c. 532.]
The Chancellor, of course, was not quite accurate, because the majority of workers do not have dependent children.
Again, I wish to quote from the evidence before the Royal Commission. This is a very important point and it comes from paragraph 405:
There can be no doubt that in the case of a man with a wife and two or three children the standard of living under equal pay would be definitely lower than that of the spinster.
I notice that even before the Royal Commission, the Treasury did not insert "or bachelor." The whole of the emphasis is put upon the women, and that is one of the main causes of general resentment. If we were to argue on a question of married versus single, even I could put up a very good argument. But the fact that the argument is aways on the married versus the spinster—that, of course, very often includes also the widow—with no mention whatever of the bachelor, arouses

very great resentment and is not an accurate picture of the situation.
I wondered, when I heard the Chancellor's statement, whether he is now, in order to relieve the pressure upon the cost of living, going to make an attack on the wages of single men. That would be an attack which would be resisted by my party. I am bound to say that if the Chancellor places his argument entirely on the case of the spinster and the widow, the only logical conclusion is that he is now going to launch a campaign to bring bachelors' wages into line with those of spinsters and widows. To continue the evidence before the Royal Commission:
On the other hand, we must not ignore the more favourable position of the considerable body of men who, at any time, are not married or who, being married, have no dependent children. At income levels at which the wife is an 'asset' rather than a dependant, a man who is married but without dependent children may enjoy a definite financial advantage over the spinster earning 20 per cent. less than himself; and this advantage would probably in many cases not be altogether lost under equal pay.
I then want to quote what was the inaccuracy in the statement of the Chancellor. He assumed that the majority of workers had dependent children, but it will be recalled that of some 30 per cent. of employed men 20 per cent. are not married and that of married men under 65, only just over a half have dependent children. That means that roughly 40 per cent. of men have dependent children. 30 per cent. are married without dependent children, and 30 per cent. are unmarried. So, in fact, the problem of the man married and with a family is 40 per cent. in relation to 60 per cent. and the fairer figure for the Chancellor to have given would have been the 40 per cent. and the majority.
I am bound to say that I think the Chancellor was inclined to try to get his very difficult case across—because we all noticed how uncomfortable he was—by trying to drive a wedge between the married and the single.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): The hon. Lady is accusing the Chancellor of inaccuracy, or I would not have intervened, but I think that on this point she is quoting him rather inaccurately. He did not say that the majority of men had children dependent on them. He said that the majority


of men employees have families dependent upon them.

Miss Ward: Wait a moment. Let us get it right:
The majority of men employees have families dependent upon them.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Miss Ward: But wait a moment; in reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) he went on to quote:
The main significant effect of the change to equal pay would be to leave the married man with a family, whose case is in any event not notably easy, economically worse off than any other member of the community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 532–534.]
So, in fact, the impression he created—and he is very keen on talking about psychology—was that the married man with a family was going to be very much worse off, where, in effect, the evidence of the Royal Commission was that in this relatively limited field a married man with two or three children might find himself worse off. We all agree, everyone of us, that it is very right and proper that we should do everything we can in this country to ease the position of the married man with a family. I think the country have accepted that very faithfully.
I want to point out again what we have done in support of those people. It is not usual for me to speak with so many notes, but on this issue I think it most important. Through our financial policy, in relation to married men and their families, we disregard, for taxation purposes,£718 million. That, of course, is gross income. It is very difficult to find, in effect, how much of that amount the Treasury loses, but we disregard, for the married men, in order to help them and their families,£718 million. In respect of children we disregard£380 million, and in respect of married women's earnings we disregard£99 million.
Not only does the married man get the benefit of his own Income Tax relief but, if she is working, his wife also gets relief on her own account. That is an important matter. In addition, this is what the Budget provides annually to the 40 per cent, of married men with families: for education,£251 million; for family allowances,£63 million; for meals in

schools,£32,500,000; for milk in schools,£8 million; and for housing subsidies,£60 million. Houses, in the main, rightly go to married men with families.
In other words, we make a very large contribution. I feel a little regretful that the Government should have fallen into the error of always assuming that spinsters and widows are in the position that they are in for certain reasons—the spinsters either by choice or because they could not marry—when, in many cases, both spinsters and widows lost their men in either the First or the Second World War so that other people might live in happiness and freedom to rear their families, which of course, is for the benefit of the nation as a whole.
The Chancellor would be well advised to cease driving this wedge, because it has repercussions in the country. Many people's postbags indicate the effect of the Chancellor's statement disregarding the privileged position of bachelors and laying the whole of his attack on spinsters. This has made the unmarried women of the community and the widows wonder whether the Government are interested in their problems at all.
That, in the main, is my answer to the Chancellor's speech. He had not in fact examined the evidence before the Royal Commission. He certainly gave us an inaccurate picture of the repercussions and, as far as I can see, he did no service towards creating a feeling of unity in the country, a feeling that we are all working together for justice irrespective of whether we are married or single.
I should like to take one other point which I think is of great importance. Over the years the justice of the cause of equal pay has made its inroads into wages and salaries both in public and in private service. There is no doubt about that. Even since this Government came into power, we have had equal pay in the hospital services for technical and administrative officers. We have had a negotiated wage agreement in the British Electricity undertaking. I gather that that is also the case with the Metropolitan Water Board, and now we have equal pay in the transport service, so far as conductresses are concerned, because the men would not agree to women conductors unless there was equal pay. It is always the emphasis on expediency rather than on justice. This has been a


definite inroad into the Government's attempt to stop the introduction of equal pay, but there is something even more interesting than that.
I am sorry to have to raise a personal case, because I do not like doing 'so. Dame Evelyn Sharp, who is a Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Local Government and Planning, without any alteration in administration or of the regulations, was suddenly permitted to come within the category of the payment of the man's rate, and the Government then —and this, of course, is the Chancellor's own story, because it was after Dame Evelyn Sharp's appointment that this happened so carefully drew the regulations that they made only the first and second jobs in the major Government Departments jobs in which equal pay was to be applicable, and only the first job in the minor Government Departments, thereby putting a ring round Dame Evelyn Sharp, and eliminating any other woman.
We all admire Dame Evelyn for her ability, and we are delighted that she has received this signal honour, but it is not fair, because the No. 2 appointment in the Ministry of Pensions—and I sometimes wonder whether the Ministry of Pensions is not a more important Department than the old Ministry of Town and Country Planning—the second job is held by Dame Marjorie Cox, who is Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Pensions, and who has spent in that Department nearly all her Civil Service life. She has been denied by the Chancellor the rate for the job. Dame Marjorie, naturally, being a good civil servant, kept silent, and I have no doubt that she sent a note of congratulation to Dame Evelyn.
There are, connected with the Ministry of Pensions, a large number of voluntary workers through the organisations which are in very close touch with the Ministry of Pensions, and many members of these voluntary organisations, who know the work which Dame Marjorie has done in the Ministry of Pensions, have written to me asking why the Chancellor should have made this artificial delineation.
I do not know, but it is very significant —and very funny things can happen in Government Departments—that when Dame Evelyn's first salary came to be paid after the arrangements had been made, she still did not receive the man's rate. That was subsequently put right,

and, as the Chancellor himself explained in a letter to me, it was a slip, because the accounts department of the Ministry of Local Government and Planning had not been informed of the change in the position, so far as Dame Evelyn was concerned.
I think that is a monstrous position for the Government to have taken up. It is unfair, it is discouraging and it is unjust, and I am very glad to have had this chance of putting that position clearly on the record.
Now I want to come to another point, and, again, I am very sorry to have to raise it here. The House of Commons is run on the basis of equal pay. Both Ministers and hon. Members have equal pay. The Press Gallery has equal pay, but there is one woman on the HANSARD staff in the Gallery, Mrs. Winder, who has not got equal pay, in spite of the fact that Mr. Speaker has made a strong recommendation to the Treasury that she should receive equal pay. He has made that recommendation twice, and on both occasions the Chancellor has turned it down.
It has been put to me as nicely as possible that it might be very distasteful to Mrs. Winder if I were to raise her case in the House of Commons. But fortunately we still have women and men in the country who can stand up for principle, and I have got Mrs. Winder's permission to draw the attention of the House to what I consider is an intolerable constitutional position, in which we have servants of the House who have no protection whatever refused a salary which has been specifically recommended by Mr. Speaker.
When I hear Ministers of the Crown get up and talk about how employers ought to behave and what the responsibilities of negotiating machinery ought to be, and the like, and I think that the Chancellor has on his own initiative—a little dictator —repudiated Mr. Speaker's recommendation, and that there is no other means of making a protest except for me to take this rather difficult line and raise the matter in the House of Commons, I find myself really wondering whether we in this country understand what fighting for principle really means.
I want to know what authority the Chancellor has over Mr. Speaker. I


understood that Mr. Speaker had the right to protect minorities. Mrs. Winder is the only woman HANSARD writer. I also want to know what control the House of Commons has over its own finance. I shall not raise the question of our Messengers here, but I also want to put on record that I think that Mr. Speaker's recommendation should stand against the Chancellor. I hope that in future some action will be taken to remedy the action of a dictator over Mr. Speaker.
I will not take up any more time of the House today other than to say that the Chancellor got up and repudiated the claim of the Civil Servants for equal pay, and that after all the professions of equality, the demand for equal sacrifices for everyone and fair shares for all, I really hope that the Chancellor will reconsider his decision. If he believes, as is the policy of his party, the policy of the Conservative Party and the policy of the Liberal Party, that this claim for equal pay is sound, practical and just, I hope that he will reconsider the decision.
I hope he will stand for what we have always believed in this country to be right—that the rate for the job should run, and that if we have to make, as needed, fit and proper contributions in respect of sections of the community such as our married men, their wives and families, that should be done by the nation as a whole, that the burden should be borne by the nation as a whole, and that we should cease discriminating against women who have great difficulty in speaking up for themselves.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby): The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) said a moment ago, "Thank goodness we still have men and women who will stick up for principle." I am sure that all Members will agree that the hon. Lady is one of them. She has made a very courageous speech this afternoon, and we are all grateful to her for having raised this matter, albeit in the last hour of the last day of a very long and exhausting Session. Some of us, I am sure, would have preferred a more ample opportunity for discussing the Chancellor's reply of 20th June and of having the advantage of more hon. and right

hon. Members present in the Chamber to discuss what is so clearly an important matter affecting conditions in our public services.
I must at once declare that I am, and have been for many years, a member of the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council, and that is my special interest in this matter apart from its general political and social significance. In that capacity I have, unfortunately, had the experience of hearing at least half a dozen Chancellors accept the principle of equal pay and then explain why they could do nothing about it, and we have recently had another experience of that kind. I am not going to make any party point in the remarks that I have to make, because both sides of the House are equally to blame.

Miss Ward: Hear, hear.

Mr. Houghton: Labour Governments, Conservative Governments and Coalition Governments have accepted the principle of equal pay, but have made excuses for not even beginning to apply it in practice. I suppose that the Liberal Party in the House is the only one with a clean sheet and a clear conscience, because although it has accepted the principle of equal pay, its electoral misfortunes have deprived it of the opportunity of postponing its practical application. We must, therefore, absolve them from any responsibility in the criticisms that we make this afternoon.
It would be inconsiderate of me to detain the House very long because I have, as I have just explained, other opportunities of expressing my point of view to Chancellors and others on this question, and other hon. Members have, at considerable inconvenience, arranged to be present this afternoon and I am anxious that they should be able to follow me in this debate. What I have to say this afternoon is really contained in Motion No. 85 which is on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of about 70 other hon. Members of all parties, including, I may say, the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth. As an example of her courage she was, I believe, the first hon. Member on the opposite side of the House to append her signature to a Motion put down by a Member on this side of the House, and I very much appreciate that action on her part.
Many hon. Members have had their attention drawn to this Motion in the course of correspondence from their constituents in the last few weeks. I apologise for any exceptional burden that may have been placed on hon. Members recently because of the terms of the Motion that I put down, but this is what my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has to answer this afternoon:
That…further delay in making a start with the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work for women in the public services will weaken the authority of Parliament and undermine public confidence in the repeated affirmations by this House of the acceptance of the principle of equal pay made during the past thirty years.
We will ignore the disappointing past history of this matter and come to what is really the starting point of the present phase of this question of equal pay in the public services. On 24th February, 1948, Sir Stafford Cripps, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a statement to a representative body of civil servants who met him to discuss this matter. It was published by the Civil Service at the time, so I am not quoting from a document which is in any sense confidential. He said:
I can say this quite definitely so far as I am concerned that if the economic situation alters for the better—that is to say, if the stringency of the White Paper can be removed "—
that was the White Paper on wages, prices and costs—
as soon as that situation arises I am perfectly prepared to re-discuss this matter with you because I believe in this personally and I always have, and it is a thing I would like to do and like to accomplish, and I think it is quite time some definite step was taken to initiate it.
He added:
If there is, in fact, an alleviation of the situation, and as a result of that one does not have to be so forcible as regards the imposition of these restrictions, then, of course, there is a different set of circumstances altogether. If the economic situation improves so that the White Paper policy does not have to be applied either at all or with the same rigidity, I am prepared to discuss this matter with you again and to see whether we cannot do something about it.
That is what the Civil Service relied on when the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave those assurances on equal pay in February, 1948. Naturally, following upon the period of aggravated economic difficulty and devaluation, the rigidity of the White Paper policy was enforced, and no

one in the Civil Service thought to trouble the Chancellor of the Exchequer during those difficult times on the question of equal pay.
It was left from that day until the early days of January this year—long after there had been a relaxation of the rigidity of the enforcement of the policy in the White Paper. As the hon. Lady has mentioned, many millions of pounds in increases in wages were paid out between the relaxation of the rigid policy of wage restraint and the date upon which the representation of the Civil Service was made to the Chancellor.
Then a further approach was made to him and the question was asked, "Can you now begin to do something about it?" My right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer took five months to reply. There are some proposals which are made in one's life in which, if one has to wait for anything like five months for a reply, one's heart sinks. One's hopes of getting any favourable reply fade away. But when a proposal is made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and five months pass in waiting for a reply, hopes rise as time passes, rather than the reverse. Thus, the disappointment from the nature of his reply was aggravated by the length of time he took to give it and there is no doubt, as the hon. Lady has said, that much disappointment has been accompanied by much indignation in the Civil Service.
I shall not take more than two minutes longer. The crux of this issue is that when Sir Stafford Cripps on behalf of His Majesty's Government—this Government —gave those assurances in 1948 he did not introduce these many matters which my right hon. Friend introduced in giving his unfavourable reply in the House on 20th June, and to which the hon. Lady has devoted such a large part of her speech, ably, if I may say so.
These were the question of raising industrial costs, the suggestion that it would necessitate an appreciable increase in family allowances, that it would involve very heavy cost to the public funds and that there would be a very considerable burden on industry. The issue raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1948 was the one I have read out to the House; and, naturally, the Civil Service expected, when they put this matter before my right hon. Friend early this year, that it would


be dealt with on this basis. Instead, as the hon. Lady has mentioned, matters were introduced of such a nature that they appeared to begin to challenge the acceptance of the principle itself.
That is what created such disturbance in the Civil Service. Delay itself, if it goes on too long—and it has gone on for 30 years—might imperil the validity and the sincerity of the acceptance of the principle, but when, added to delay, there is the beginning of an argument that equal pay as a principle is probably doubtful, then, naturally, there is a good deal of resentment that the whole issue has been thrown into the melting pot. I do say to my hon. Friend that it is no good giving excuse after excuse for not doing something about the principle, if there is to be any confidence left in the acceptance of it. The partial beginning of the application of this principle would have required a modest expenditure only, and it would have had the minimum repercussions outside.
The hon. Lady has drawn our attention to the very much more modified statement on these matters made by the Royal Commission appointed to go into this matter, and has also drawn attention to the marked contrast between the evidence given by the Treasury to the Royal Commission four or five years ago and the gloomy nature of the references that are now made to the very same matters upon which they gave very different evidence indeed in 1945. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure the House that the door is not closed and that further consideration to this matter will be given, so that when we come back in the autumn a modified and more favourable statement will be able to be made on behalf of the Government.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Price: It falls to all of us to observe economy in time and words today, so I shall concentrate upon three or four of the points I want to make. First, I should like to explain to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that I did not support his Motion, not because I did not agree with its content, but because I did not feel that he had the slightest hope of its ever being called, and I thought that it would be wiser for me to support my hon.

Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward), in her request that she should be allowed to raise this matter today.
I am very glad that my analysis of the probabilities has proved to be correct. I want to wish her luck in the campaign which she and her friends are waging, and to assure her that I, at any rate, support her 100 per cent. If she does not meet with the success for which she hopes in the lifetime of this Parliament, I hope that she will continue her campaign in the lifetime of the next Parliament, whatever its political complexion; and, irrespective of its political complexion, I pledge my support to her.
However, I want to make a qualification. It is not a qualification of my support, but it is, nevertheless, a qualification. Whenever I have discussed this matter with the champions of equal pay for equal work I have always made this point: I think that, in the long run, some of them, if they get their way, will rue it, because I feel that the time may come, when industry is free to choose between a man and a woman to do the same job and has to pay the same rate, when the bias will be towards the man. When that situation arises women and the champions of equal pay may regret it. Subject to that proviso, and having pointed out that proviso, I pledge my support wholeheartedly.
I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth in what she said about the lack of validity in the arguments that have been used anent the position of the single woman vis-à-vis the married man. I cannot see that such an argument has any place whatever in any discussion upon the wage structure. It must be admitted, of course, that the responsibilities of a married man with a family—and I cannot see much difference between a married man with a family and a married man with children—need special care, but they are given special care within our taxation structure, and it does not seem to me that there is any argument whatever that they should also be cared for within the wages structure.
If such an argument is held then I ask those who hold it to be logical, and to carry it to its logical conclusion, which is this: if we are to have variations within our wages structure in accordance with the domestic responsibilities of the employed, we must have one wage


for a single man, one for a married man with no children, one for a married man with one child, one for a married man with two children, and so on. Obviously, that is complete nonsense.
This argument has no validity whatever. If it is felt that such arguments must be considered at all, then they must be considered within the range of the social services and the structure of our taxation system, not within our wages structure. The only thing that matters there is that there should be equal pay for equal work. It is a moral argument against which I can see no counter-argument except that of expediency.
I am particularly interested in education. With a male school teacher in one classroom teaching a class of pupils and a female school teacher in the next classroom of the same school teaching another class of pupils, possibly with greater success, how can it be argued that the woman should be paid only 80 per cent. of the salary of the man. I can see no moral argument for that. Obviously, they should have equal pay for equal work.
This subject has been argued again and again, and this afternoon there is no time to go over all the arguments, so I will leave the matter there, adding only two points, one moral and one political. The moral point is this. We praised women all of us, myself included—for their service to the nation in time of war. Their service to the nation then was not dependent upon whether they were married or single. That did not matter a rap. Our praise for them was not qualified according to whether they were married or single, so let our praise be shown to be not merely lip-service; let them have what is their just and due reward, and that is a successful conclusion to the campaign they have been waging for 30 years, which has complete moral justification.
The other point is, I admit quite frankly, political, and it is one which I am quite prepared to use in a just cause. Last week I heard a right hon. Gentleman opposite say that we on this side of the House had talked about things while the Socialist Party had done them. He was referring to the increased retirement pensions for members of the Forces. Here is another opportunity for His Majesty's Government to make that boast if they wish.
For 30 years Governments have been talking about this. Let the Socialist Government do it and provide themselves with another argument in the forthcoming election. But let them beware that if they do not it will be an argument against them, and an opportunity for the next Government, which, in my opinion, will be a Tory Government, to do it and to have the credit for themselves. If no other argument appeals to the Financial Secretary I hope that the one of political expediency will.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: The teachers of this country were extremely disappointed when the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced that he was unable to give effect to the principle of equal pay in the Civil Service. As long ago as 1919, the chief teachers' organisation of this country, the National Union of Teachers, held a referendum of its members on the question of equal pay, and the result of that referendum was a big majority in favour of equal pay for men and women teachers. It is perhaps significant to note that a good many of those who voted in that referendum were men still serving overseas as soldiers and sailors in His Majesty's Forces.
Since 1919, at every annual conference of the National Union of Teachers the question of equal pay for men and women has been raised, and at every annual conference the principle has been accepted by an overwhelming majority—I might almost say nemine contradicente. It is a very large conference, comprising over 2,000 delegates, the majority of whom are men, yet year after year that principle has been adopted by an overwhelming majority.
Every time, since 1919, that the teachers' representatives have gone to the Burnham Committee to negotiate salary scales the leader of the teachers' representatives has, at the very commencement of the salary negotiations, asked that the salary scales should be based upon equal pay for men and women teachers. On every occasion during these negotiations, of which there have been a number since 1919—and I myself took part in two salary negotiations as a member of the Burnham Committee in 1944 and 1948—the leader of the Authorities' Panel has


replied to the demand of the leader of the Teachers' Panel for the principal of equal pay to be recognised by the local education authorities: "The Government do not recognise the principle of equal pay. The Government do not give equal pay to their civil servants. Therefore, we in the local authorities cannot do what the Government are not doing. If we agree to equal pay for men and women teachers, His Majesty's Government must first set the example." That is why teachers throughout the country were so disappointed when the Chancellor said that he could not apply the principle to men and women in the Civil Service.
So far as women teachers are concerned, there is an overwhelming case for equal pay. Men and women go to the same or similar colleges and universities. They take the same degrees or the same certificate: they both have jobs of equal responsibility. It is just as big a responsibility to teach girls as it is to teach boys. In fact, the majority of women class teachers are teaching both boys and girls in mixed classes and a considerable minority of the men class teachers are teaching girls with boys also in mixed classes. Therefore, so far as their work is concerned, men and women teachers are completely interchangeable.
Whatever canon may be adopted, on every count there is an overwhelming case for equal pay for men and women teachers, and the announcement of the Chancellor a few weeks' ago seems to have postponed the adoption of that desirable principle for a considerable time. This difference in pay between men and women teachers gives rise to a number of fairly considerable anomalies. For example, in many mixed schools the head is a woman, and in that case she does not get so high a salary as the deputy head who is, in most cases, a man. It is also keenly felt by women teachers that we are behind other nations in this recognition. It is recognised in France, and the French men teachers do not complain because the women get equal pay. It is recognised in most of the States of the United States of America.
The Chancellor says that he agrees with the principle of equal pay and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will also say that he agrees with it. We all agree

with the principle on both sides of the House, and in all three parties, but the Chancellor says that he cannot implement it because it would have inflationary effects. Would it not be possible to implement it by degrees? Would it not be possible to give to the women civil servants and the women teachers the same increments as the men receive while they are on the incremental portion of the scales? Could they not proceed to their maximum by the same increments of the men and then, when they arrive at their maximum, proceed by further increments to the present men's maximum? It would mean that the principle would be implemented, but it would take a number of years to do that—

Mr. Price: Eighteen.

Mr. Morley: A little less now, because the increments are a bit bigger. I think it would take 14 years to implement. It must also be remembered that on those increased increments most of the women receiving them would be paying Income Tax at the rate of 9s. 6d. in the£, so nearly half would go back to the Treasury. Surely the inflationary effect would be very small indeed if equal pay were given in that way. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give that suggestion sympathetic consideration.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Black: I promise to be extremely brief, and I only want to raise one narrow point- the cost to the public purse of implementing the policy of equal pay. The Chancellor, in his statement, said that the cost of the full implementation would be£25 million a year. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley), put a point I wanted to make, that the amount must be reduced by Income Tax. I would remind the House that it would be reduced by at least one-third, so that the net cost would not be more than£17 million a year.
If the policy were implemented over a period of six years, in equal stages, that would be rather less than£3 million a year. Is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury going to tell us that with a national expenditure of£4,197 million a year during the current financial year, it would be utterly impossible to increase that expenditure in a single year by rather less than£3 million? That is


really what the problem resolves itself into when the figures are looked at and considered simply as a cold financial problem.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Harry Wallace: I do not propose to take more than three minutes. I want to ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary if he will answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), does the recent estimate by the Chancellor of the Exchequer repudiate, modify or qualify the statement made by Sir Stafford Cripps?
The Government are committed to this principle. One hon. Member has suggested that we may not get another chance for discussion in this Parliament. Believe me, in the country no Government will escape this discussion. If I be wrong in my estimate of the life of this Government and there should be a General Election, there is not one political candidate who will not say that he does not believe in this principle. This is a principle accepted by all. When are we to start? We believe that a start can be made immediately, and if there is any help wanted as to the application of the principle there are dozens of men and women in this Parliament who will give the necessary advice.
Every trade union is ready to co-operate in devising practical schemes of application. The Trades Union Congress will co-operate. I beg my hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to destroy the good will which exists today. People are prepared to he reasonable and are in the mood to be reasonable as they appreciate the country's difficulty, but the Government can make a sign.
I do not accept for one moment that a start on equal pay need have an inflationary effect. Further, when a woman has reached her maximum, she should, if she remains in the Service and gives additional service, gain additional increments until she achieves the maximum rate of the job.
I do not accept any reference to any other points which have been made about this matter in regard to equal pay for equal work, It is the rate for the job which is the issue. In all my experience in the Post Office, as a Post Office trade union official and as vice-chairman of the

Government Negotiating Councils on the industrial side, I have never secured increased pay because of a man's responsibility. I was always reminded of the value of the work and the comparable value of the job. I hope that the Government will reverse their decision, accept the principle of the rate for the job and make a start with its application immediately.

4.50 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): First and foremost I would like to affirm again what I think everybody today recognises, that the Government, just as much as hon. Members who have spoken, believe that equal pay for equal work is desirable and right and is an objective, alongside other social objectives, to be attained as soon as the national resources allow.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that, in that sense, of course, the door is still open. The only issue between us, I think, as the last speaker and the hon. Lady opposite said, is whether this particular objective should have an overriding priority this year. I can assure the hon. Lady that it is quite wrong to say that the Government rejected or repudiated the claim from the Civil Service. They did not do that. They merely came to the conclusion that that was not the first priority this year.
What we had to decide this year was which of the various claimants had the strongest case, on the ground of social need, for the improvement of their relative position. Beside this claim we had, for instance, those of the old-age pensioners, those receiving National Assistance, war pensioners, ex-employees of public authorities who have a claim for higher pensions, the claims for better holidays for Government industrial employees, better family allowances, and a number of others.
In all the circumstances, we decided—and I am still convinced that we decided rightly—that, on the test of need and in this year's circumstances, the first priority had to go, by way of increased expenditure, to the old age pensioners, to National Assistance, to some of the war pensioners, to some sections of the health services, and by way of tax relief, as the hon. Lady recognised, to those with families. In deciding that issue of comparative need, the Government had clearly, I should


have thought, to take into account the real economic consequences of granting equal pay.
The hon. Lady said that there had been a change of view about the repercussions of this decision, but our view, in the light of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on that subject—the hon. Lady quoted some of the evidence, but she did not quote the conclusions of the Report—and of experience, is that there certainly would be repercussions. I think what my hon. Friend said about the teachers showed that the action of the Government would be taken as an example by other bodies.
I was asked about the possibility of action by degrees. I can only say briefly that, as my right hon. Friend stated in his statement, we came to the conclusion, in the light of all the advice and information that we had, that any procedure of that kind would, in fact, just like the immediate decision to carry the full scheme out, be followed at once by repercussions of that kind.

Mr. H. Wallace: Mr. H. Wallacerose—

Mr. Jay: I must go on now. There would be consequences on private employers. We must agree that any such decision by the Government would improve the position of the employed woman generally as compared with that of the employed man, or, in other words, of the employed woman in the community in relation to that of the whole of the rest of the community, which, let us remember, includes most of the women and practically all the children.
We must accept, in all honesty, the fact that, in the words of my right hon. Friend—if I may quote him again, accurately—the majority of men employees have families dependent upon them. The majority of women employees have not. If hon. Members do not accept what my right hon. Friend said, we can put it in the words of the Royal Commission Report, which said—I am quoting here:
The average male earner is a husband and father. The average woman in employment is not a wife and mother, and even the wives and mothers who are in employment are not normally the sole support of their families.
The Report went on:
It is manifest…
In my opinion this is highly relevant, and the Commission thought so:

…that the welfare of many more persons depends on the level of the man's rate of pay than on that of the woman's rate.…

Miss Ward: Bachelors.

Mr. Jay: I have quoted the Commission's Report precisely. It follows from that that the grant of equal pay by itself would tend relatively to depress the standards of a very large number of people whose needs must very often be greater—in the majority of cases, I should think—than those benefiting by the change. The hon. Lady quoted the various social services and tax reliefs which are enjoyed by married persons by virtue of children and so on; but, even taking that into account, I have little doubt that, if we look at the situation as it now exists, those most in need are the single income earners who have families to support. If we face these facts, we are surely driven towards the conclusion that, on the test of need—

Miss Ward: Bachelors.

Mr. Jay: —resulting claims for larger family allowances would, as the Chancellor said in his statement, be a logical accompaniment to equal pay. I think that hon. Members agree with that; but, clearly, we must admit that any introduction now of both those desirable reforms over large sections of the community, coming on top of all the other claims on our resources, would require far steeper increases in taxation this year than the House, the country, or perhaps even the hon. Lady would be willing to accept. So we came to the conclusion—

Miss Ward: I am waiting for a reply about bachelors.

Mr. Jay: I know that the hon. Lady has always taken a great interest in bachelors, but they really are a minority in this argument. If we are to be fair to all sections of the community, there can be no escape from the conclusion which we reached that the introduction of equal pay together with any logical accompaniment in the way of family allowances, highly desirable as both are as social objectives, could not this year have a priority over-riding all the other deserving claims on our resources.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes to Five o'Clock, till Tuesday, 16th October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.